Mutual Aid Based Group Work.com

Free Articles from Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery!

2011-08-29T16:07:00.000-04:00

The following articles from the Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery are
open for free online access until December 31, 2011. To download, go to
www.tandf.co.uk/journals/top/WGAR.pdf.

Therapeutic Factors in Group Psychotherapy: A Study of Egyptian Drug Addicts,
Sanaa Ahmed, Samir Abolmagd, Mona Rakhawy, Salwa Erfan, and Rania Mamdouh

Recovery and Straw Men: An Analysis of the Objections Raised to the Transition to a
Recovery Model in UK Addiction Services, David Best, Stephen Bamber, Alison Battersby,
Mark Gilman, Teodora Groshkova, Stuart Honor, David McCartney, Rowdy Yates,
and William White

A Drug and Alcohol Intervention with Old Order Amish Youth: Dancing on the Devil’s
Playground, Chris Weber, James A. Cates, and Shirley Carey

A Categorical Assessment of 12-Step Involvement in Relation to Recovery
Resources, John M. Majer, Jocelyn R. Droege, and Leonard A. Jason

Support Network Intervention Team: A Key Component of a Comprehensive Approach
to Family-Based Substance Abuse Treatment, Jon L. Winek, Lance J. Dome,
Joseph R. Gardner, Corrine R. Sackett, M. Joan Zimmerman, and Melissa K. Davis

Access to Free Group Work Articles

2011-03-31T10:16:00.000-04:00

The following articles are available, free of charge, from Routledge, the publishers of the journals, Social Work with Groups, Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, and The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, amongst many others. Enjoy free access until July, 2011.

The Journal for Specialists in Group Work
“Build Your Social Confidence”: A Social Anxiety Group for College Students
Diana E. Damer, Kelsey M. Latimer, and Sarah H. Porter

Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery
A Categorical Assessment of 12-Step Involvement in Relation to Recovery Resources
John M. Majer, Jocelyn R. Droege, and Leonard A. Jason

Social Work with Groups
Autism Spectrum Disorders: Building Social Skills in Group, School, and Community Settings
Amie W. Duncan and Laura Grofer Klinger

Here is the link to these and other articles!
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/access/ACA2011.pdf

Selected Papers of William L. White Website

2011-02-02T15:24:00.002-05:00

William L. White is Senior Research Consultant at Chestnut Health Systems/Lighthouse Institute and past chair of the board of Recovery Communities United. For much of his career, White has been a devoted advocate through published scholarship and direct action for effective and respectful recovery policies and treatment approaches. Many of you may first have encountered White’s scholarship by reading his award-winning book, Slaying the dragon: The history of addiction treatment and recovery in America (1998). A prolific writer in a career that has spanned more than four decades, he has authored or co-authored more than 300 articles, monographs, book chapters and /or books. In the golden years of his career, it is then both a fitting tribute and further gift to the treatment community that much of his scholarship is available through his website, Selected Papers of William L. White, available at the web address www.williamwhitepapers.com.

The website's primary purpose is as a resource library for topics related to addiction treatment and recovery, and is composed of more than 200 articles previously published in peer reviewed journals. Using the search box, the key words "group psychotherapy" yielded 46 results; "group treatment" yielded 183 results; and "group work" yielded 163 matches.

Treatment providers in the field of addictions will find this website an invaluable resource.

Check it out; let us know what you think in the comments box when you get a chance.

Irvin Yalom Outpatient Group Therapy Video

2010-12-21T18:17:00.000-05:00

This is not reflective of a mutual aid based group work approach, but rather an insight based group work approach. Still there are clear mutual aid processes reflected such as mutual support and mutual demand. The video is a resource available through Psychotherapy.Net. Here is the link to the You Tube channel where you can watch other videos related to psychotherapy.

Mutual aid processes in treatment groups for people with substance use disorders: A survey of group practitioners (by Andrew Cicchetti)

2010-11-28T10:42:00.001-05:00

Abstract:

There is scant empirical evidence demonstrating the presence and importance of mutual aid processes in Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment groups (Crits-Christoph et al, 1999; Sandahl & Ronnberg, 1990). Consequently this exploratory, internet-delivered survey was conducted to further examine the presence of mutual aid processes in abstinence-based SUD treatment groups in the field and the variables that are associated with higher amounts of mutual aid. The sample for this study comprised members of NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals (n=484). In order to obtain information about group treatment in the field a trigger question was asked allowing the identification of respondents that had led a treatment group in an abstinent-based setting within the previous two years (n=369). The study utilized an author-created scale, the Mutual Aid Processes Scale (MAPS) comprised of 30 mutual aid processes. Reliability testing of the MAPS indicated high reliability, with a Chronbach's Alpha of .96. Factor analysis suggested that all 30 items related as a unitary construct.

Univariate findings suggested that more than two-thirds of the possible mutual aid processes occurred with frequency. Of a range of 0 to 6, the overall score on the MAPS for this study was 3.89, with 4 equaling "frequently", reinforcing the finding that mutual aid processes occur frequently in the groups about which were reported. The amount of education and training received by the group leader was positively associated with the scores on the MAPS. Further bivariate analyses and stepwise multiple regression analyses suggested that the group leader's level of facilitation, frequency of meeting, and heterogeneous composition of membership with regard to mandated status were all positively associated with higher levels of mutual aid as measured on the MAPS, accounting for almost 23% of the variance on the mean scores of the MAPS (adjusted R2 = .218). The findings of this study have implications for counselor training, social work education, and group treatment research.

Proquest Link

Group Relations Conference focused on Addictions and Recovery, January 2011

2010-11-22T06:39:00.001-05:00

Mental health professionals in the field of addiction will likely be interested in knowing about the Group Relations Conference to be held in Chicago January 14 through the 16, 2011. The Group Relations Conference is an experiential conference in the Tavistock tradition and offers a unique opportunity to study group and organizational processes.

This year's theme is on Authority and Leadership in Recovery from Addictions. The conference chair is Jeffrey Roth, editor of the Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery.

This event is co-sponsored by the Illinois Chapter of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups.

Here are relevant links:

Brochure

Group Relations Conference

Registration Options

Register before 12/1/2010 to secure the early bird price!

Free Online Access to journal Social Work with Groups for November 2010!

2010-11-18T19:10:00.003-05:00

Hello All. It has been ages since I posted anything here. I thought I would let you know that Taylor and Francis, which publishes dozens of Social Service and Public Health related journals, including Social Work with Groups and the Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, is providing free open access to all current and back content. You can download all and any articles in PDF form for private use. Here is the link to the Open Access Promo page and the link for Social Work with Groups and the Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery.

Enjoy!

Research Note from Mark Macgowan: Group Engagement Measure (GEM)

2010-11-01T22:07:00.002-04:00

The Group Engagement Measure (GEM) was developed to assess engagement of individual group members in treatment groups. The original GEM consists of 37 items in seven dimensions: attendance, contributing, relating (to worker and with members), contracting, and working (on own problems, on others' problems). Several studies involving clinical and non-clinical samples have supported the measure’s reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater), validity (construct, concurrent, and predictive), and standard error of measurement, with favorable results (Macgowan, 1997, 2000; Macgowan & Levenson, 2003). To test the dimensionality of the measure, the factor structure was tested using confirmatory factor analysis involving clinical and non-clinical groups (Macgowan & Newman, 2005). The study confirmed the dimensionality of the original 7-factor, 37-item GEM for clinical groups. Two shorter versions were produced: A 7-factor, 27-item version for clinical groups, and a 5-factor, 21-item version suitable for clinical or non-clinical groups.

The GEM was conceived to be leader-scored. However, previous studies included validation measures completed by both members and leaders, suggesting minimal rating bias. In addition, member and leader ratings were correlated in previous research (Levenson & Macgowan, 2004; Macgowan, 1997).

Several publications offer ideas for using the measure in clinical practice. The first two were evidence-based approaches to increasing engagement in groups (Macgowan, 2003, 2006b). The second study was an application of the measure for women in a psychoeducational parenting skills group for substance abuse treatment (Plasse, 2000).

An unpublished pilot test of the GEM’s reliability was done by Macgowan involving a sample of adolescents (N = 71) from a larger study that compared Westchester Model Student Assistance Program group counseling (10 session, standardized format) with assessment/referral-only. An independent rater listened to audio tapes of sessions and completed the GEM on each adolescent at early (3rd or 4th session) and late (7th or 8th session) group stages. The coefficient alphas were .94 and .96 for the early and later group sessions, with Standard Error of Measurements of 5.22 and 5.06, respectively. Test-retest reliability was .68, p < .001. Thus, preliminary data suggest that the GEM has excellent internal consistency, a low SEM, and good stability with this sample of adolescents. The GEM has also been used in research on AOD use among Hispanics (Prado, Pantin, Schwartz, Lupei, & Szapocznik, 2005; Tapia, Schwartz, Prado, Lopez, & Pantin, 2006). A general overview of the GEM, with a focus on how it relates to AOD groups, has also been published (Macgowan, 2006a). For more information on the Group Engagement Measure, contact the author at Macgowan@fiu.edu.

Also, some readers may be interested in Mark Macgowans's new book, A Guide to Evidence Based Group Work published in January, 2008 by Oxford University Press. For easy on-line purchase, click this link!

References

Levenson, J. S., & Macgowan, M. J. (2004). Engagement, denial and treatment progress among sex offenders in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(1), 49-63.

Macgowan, M. J. (1997). A measure of engagement for social group work: The Groupwork Engagement Measure (GEM). Journal of Social Service Research, 23(2), 17-37.

Macgowan, M. J. (2000). Evaluation of a measure of engagement for group work. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(3), 348-361.

Macgowan, M. J. (2003). Increasing engagement in groups: A measurement based approach. Social Work with Groups, 26(1), 5-28.

Macgowan, M. J. (2006a). The Group Engagement Measure: A review of its conceptual and empirical properties. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, 1(2), 33-52.

Macgowan, M. J. (2006b). Measuring and increasing engagement in substance abuse treatment groups: Advancing evidence-based group work. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery, 1(2), 53-67.

Macgowan, M. J., & Levenson, J. S. (2003). Psychometrics of the Group Engagement Measure with male sex offenders. Small Group Research, 34(2), 155-169.

Macgowan, M. J., & Newman, F. L. (2005). The factor structure of the Group Engagement Measure. Social Work Research, 29(2), 107-118.

Plasse, B. R. (2000). Components of engagement: Women in a psychoeducational parenting skills group in substance abuse treatment. Social Work with Groups, 22(4), 33-50.

Prado, G., Pantin, H., Schwartz, S. J., Lupei, N. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2005). Predictors of Engagement and Retention into a Parent-Centered, Ecodevelopmental HIV Preventive Intervention for Hispanic Adolescents and their Families. Journal of Pediatric Psychology.

Tapia, M. I., Schwartz, S. J., Prado, G., Lopez, B., & Pantin, H. (2006). Parent-Centered Intervention: A Practical Approach for Preventing Drug Abuse in Hispanic Adolescents. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(2), 146-165.

5 Questions for Larry Shulman

2010-01-03T17:22:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, Larry Shulman has made numerous contributions to the field of Social Work for more than 40 years. He has made significant contributions through teaching, research, theory building, and the profession's literature. The author of the popular text, The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups and Communities is now in its fifth edition. Along with Alex Gitterman, Larry is also the co-editor of the popular book, Mutual Aid Groups, Vulnerable Populations and the Life Cycle. For those of us who employ a mutual aid based approach to group work we are likely to have encountered Larry Shulman's work. I am pleased that Larry agreed to this interview for Mutual Aid Based Group Work. com. I enjoyed the exchange and I hope you will too. For more about Larry Shulman's extensive and illustrious career please check the on-line final program for the 2007 AASWG Symposium which includes a discussion about Larry, who is a 2007 International Honoree, written by his long time colloborator and friend, Alex Gitterman.

Q. Larry, I imagine that William Schwartz, Bill, served as a significant influence on you professionally and personally. I see that you, along with Alex Gitterman, have furthered the conceptualization of the mutual aid model of group work and that you embrace the integrative approach to social work education, as exemplified in your popular text, The Skills of Helping, now in its 5th edition. Can you tell us a little bit about your relationship with Bill? How did you meet? What impact personally and professionally do you feel he has had on you?

A. I was a new field instructor for the Columbia University School of Social Work running a teen program at the Mt. Vernon YM&YWHA. We were required to take a six session workshop on field instruction and it was Bill's turn to provide one. At the first session I proudly volunteered to describe my student's assignment working with a group of white, Jewish teenagers on a project with an equivalent African-American group at a local church. The project was to provide a tutorial program for students at the church. I said: "Although that's the announced purpose of the program, our real goal is to enhance white and black relationships in the town". This was consistent with the"social goals" model of group work. Bill responded: "Do the members of the group know the real goal?" I was insulted as he pointed out, to my humiliation, that I had a "hidden agenda". I told my wife that night I would not return to the workshop but after some "healing" and reflection I realized he was right. I did have a hidden agenda. Bill had painfully and permanently "shifted my paradigm" of practice. I went back the next week and from that point on he became an important mentor as I had to re-learn much of my group work training and start to develop my elaboration of the mutual aid (or Interactional) model of practice.

Bill could be very tough and very demanding but also on a deeper level very caring. He was one of the most intelligent social work educators I ever met and was a scholar in the true sense of the word. Not only did Bill begin to describe a new paradigm of practice, rejecting the "medical model" study, diagnosis and treatment framework, he helped me and others to focus on method. What we knew about people (knowledge) was important but that had to be translated into specific interventions in order to qualify as a practice theory.

What was so striking about Bill's framework was that it was easily adapted to fit classroom teaching as well as supervision. The concept of the parallel process was another of his important contributions to our field. I only had a few opportunities to watch him present or teach however in each one I was struck by how he practiced what he was preaching. At times, I felt a bit more support and a bit less confrontation would be a better fit but for Bill, this was him. I would need to develop my own integration of support and demand. The really nice part of his framework was the fact that we could integrate our personal and our professional selves.

Q. When I read Schwartz’s work on what we call the Mutual Aid Model of Group Work, I see that he presented a fairly comprehensive and sophisticated model. I know that you expanded the elaboration of mutual aid processes and that you incorporate some of Bion’s thinking into the approach to practice. Can you talk about that and tell us how else you (with or without Alex) have expanded, added to or modified the model from it’s earlier incarnations.

A. Bill published many scholarly articles and had a number of unpublished works. For example, he tape recorded and then had transcribed the content of a series of continuing education classes he presented at Columbia which are a treasure trove of his original thinking about practice. (This interview is reminding me that I need to send copies of all of this original material and correspondence to the group work archives). Bill built on the work of pioneers such as Jessie Taft and Virginia Robinson who taught at the University at Pennsylvania School of Social Work. They were the founders of the "functional school" of social work. The debate between the functional school and the "diagnostic" school (the medical model consisting of three phases - study, diagnosis and treatment) has long been forgotten but it really was important. The functional school folks were isolated from the profession, turned inward and lost influence. Bill's work brought it back to life.

His original conceptualizations of the importance of mutual aid, the interactional nature of practice, the importance of contracting and the "two client" idea formed the foundation of my work and the work of others. I consider my contribution to be built on this foundation. I worked to translate his ideas into a practice text (The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups and Communities, 5th edition) that has been widely used since the first edition in the 1970s. Bill never completed his own text book (stopped after the first three chapters) however Alex Gitterman and I co-edited a volume consisting of these three chapters (updated by Toby Berman-Rossi) and all of his collected writing. It was published by Peacock Press but I don't think it is still in print.

In addition to making his work more widely available through publications and video tapes I elaborated on his model in a number of ways. I did the earliest research on the helping skills he described through a number of studies of child welfare individual and group practice, doctor-patient relationship and supervision. These studies began to provide evidence of the importance of process, the use of skills and the development and impact of the "working relationship". The research was focused on the interactional process rather than just on the outcomes. I am continuing this work in other areas of research such as school violence, substance abuse counselling and work with young people "aging out" of foster care.

On the model itself, I developed an early framework to operationalize a number of mutual aid processes such as the "all-in-the-same-boat" phenomenon. This framework has been used by others in research on the mutual aid process. I also wrote an early publication on the scapegoat phenomenon that illustrated the importance of the two client idea and the practice concept that required the group leader to be with both the individual and the group at the same time. While Bill used the functional model to discuss the four phases of work (preliminary, beginning - contracting, middle and ending/transitions) I extended that model to the description of an individual session (i.e., sessional tuning in, sessional contracting, elaborating skills).

My development of a category observation system for video taping sessions and then analyzing them using trained raters scoring the behaviors every three seconds allowed me to more closely understand how the dynamic interaction between client (individual or group) proceeded. For example, with over 100,000 entries analyzed through a "FORTRAN" program developed by a friend we were able to determine if sessional contracting had taken place (the worker and the client were on the same issues) or what worker behaviors followed three seconds of silence. To give some idea of how long ago this was we had to key punch cards with the data and then submit them to a main frame computer picking up our print outs a few hours later. If my current NIH application is funded I am returning to this research in the area of supervision and group work practice in the substance abuse field but with more sophisticated equipment and procedures.

I also tried to build on his work by using my own practice (I tried to lead at least one group a year) as illustrations of the power of mutual aid. For example, a short-term single parents group and a group for persons with AIDS in early substance abuse led to publications that included significant process recording excerpts demonstrating the incredible power of mutual aid as members helped each other and as I and my co-leaders encouraged this process. Perhaps the most widely used video tapes I made and distributed (Insight Media now carries them) were of the 1st and then the 19th session of a married couples group I led back in the late seventies. Whenever I use them in a class I have to pause after the first five minutes and tell the class "OK, get it out of your system" which leads to some loud laughter as they comment on how I have changed from that young guy in his 30s.

I also built on Bill's concept of supervision and elaborated it in my NASW published book "Interactional Supervision". With updated examples and chapters dealing with issues including supervision of staff in response to various traumas (i.e., the death of a child on a caseload or the physical attack on a worker) I feel I was able to communicate the core of his practice comments to a wider audience.

Q. From reading your text and chapters or articles I see that you share an interest of mine in working with groups of people who both have HIV/AIDS and a substance use disorder. How did you get involved with that? How were you received by the group? What stands out for you about that experience?

A. I was teaching at Boston University when we obtained a grant from an NIH agency designed to encourage social work faculty to find out more about substance abuse and to infuse this knowledge into their teaching and scholarship. I signed up with some other colleagues and for a year participated in a structured biweekly seminar. We were also required to do a project and I chose leading the group for persons with AIDS in early substance abuse recovery. This was, in effect, my field work assignment. I had been involved doing some volunteer training for the Boston AIDS Action Committee and decided to develop a group for clients living in a structured living environment (single room occupancy) with built-in support services. I partnered with a staff member who was an addictions counsellor and after doing our "system's work" we started a once a week group in the residence. I reported on this group in a key-note presentation at the AASWG conference in Quebec and later published it in the Haworth Press Social Work With Groups Journal. My reception by the group is detailed in the first session process recording in the article (and the detailed process in the Skills of Helping...) when at the end of the session I reached for the indirect cues from one member wondering about whether the co-leaders were in recovery. My co-leader was, but I was not. I reached for the underlying question and answered as honestly as I could about my teaching and my involvement in the NIH project. After which, my member who had raised the issue laughed and said: "Oh, I thought you were a narc!" We had begun to address the "authority theme". I learned a great deal during the year I co-led the group and not just about substance abuse, recovery and the impact of AIDS. This was early in the development of the triple drug therapies so some of the members were hoping for a cure, others hoping to be able to live with AIDS and my trans-gendered member whose use of hormone treatment had excluded her from the trials, saying she was just hoping to "Die with dignity instead of hustling old men on street corners for money to buy drugs". What I learned was the incredible strength these group members who had survived the most horrible of childhood experiences, including emotional, physical and sexual abuse, could bring to the task of tackling the dual issues of recovery and AIDS. I also saw first hand how powerful mutual aid could be for people who had been in the drug culture so long they had forgot how to care for others and be cared for by others. I also learned how strong our feelings can be for our clients, and how long the can persist, as even as I write this I still feel strong emotions associated with the death of my trans-gendered member soon after the group ended. I believe that the group did help her die with dignity.

Q. Ok. So you are Shulman! Tell us about group work mistakes you have made in your practice. What did you do with those ‘mistakes’?

A. As I tell my students, you take risks, make mistakes, learn from those mistakes and then make more sophisticated mistakes. I like to think that in my practice and teaching I am now making more sophisticated mistakes. Bill Schwartz had an expression: "You are only as good as your last session" by which he meant you have to keep working on your practice or you will find yourself making mistakes. I have found that to be true in that when my own life experiences or stresses have interfered I have had to look closely at how they were impacting my ability to hear and respond to what was going on in my class or my practice. An early mistake, from which I learned a lot, was when I began a group for widows with the canned line that said "The purpose of this group is for you to learn how to work through your grief." One member looked this thirty year-old group leader in the eye and said: "You don't learn to work through your grief, sonny, you learn to live with your grief". Never having lost someone close to me that was the start of my education about loss and grief. More recently, in an incident I documented in another article in the Journal of Social Work With Groups, I was leading a large (150 participant) two-day workshop on issues of diversity (inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic) in leading mutual aid support groups. After complaining about the lack of enough air conditioning the first day (it was a centrally controlled system) I started the second day (a Saturday) in the same room when 45 minutes after we began a young African-American man in jeans, a tee shirt and a baseball cap entered from the back of the room and was looking around the room. I said: "I'm glad you are here and the thermostat is over there". He replied: "I'm not the maintenance man, I'm a participant". Instantly feeling embarrassed by my mistake I quickly apologized and went right into my presentation. I was sweating profusely, and it wasn't from the heat, as I put my had down and tried to tough it out. After 15 minutes I stopped and went back to the incident and pointed out how I had felt about my response which reflected an internalized stereotype and how I tried to avoid dealing with it. Three African-American women in the first row laughed and one said: "We wondered if you were ever to get back to it." This started the best discussion of the workshop with both white participants and persons of color discussing how taboo the issue was and how hard it was to face it openly. For me, it was an important illustration, once again, of how one can go back and catch a mistake. As I have often reassured students, we all make mistakes the only question is if we have the skill and courage to go back to them and how quickly to we do so. I caught it in the same morning which I felt very good about.

Q. Finally, congratulations on your recent retirement from teaching and recognition by the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups as an International Honoree. What is on the horizon for you now? What are you working on or are you simply spending more time with family and friends in New Hampshire.

A. I won't be formally teaching anymore, about which I have mixed feelings but mostly relief. I will be missing attending all of those wonderful faculty meetings and committee work (OK, maybe not so much). I will be moving over to the Research Foundation side of the University to do part-time research on my areas of interest - school violence, supervision and group work. I am now stationed in New Hampshire and commuting back to Buffalo as needed. As I write this our two grand children (11 and 5) are visiting with us for two weeks as their parents are off in Europe attending academic conferences, so yes, I will be spending more time with friends and family. I still travel and present workshops on practice, group work and supervision so that will keep my hands in the teaching process. I am also working on a 6th editon of Skills of Helping which should be available in 2008. I have a contract with the same publisher (Wadsworth) to do a group counselling book that will be aimed at all counselling professions -- not just social work. As I have worked with a great inter-disciplinary committee on a five-year NIH funded conference on clincial supervision (I co-chair the conference with Andy Safyer) I have realized that the concept of mutual aid has not really penetrated the literature of psychology, counselling psychology, nursing, school counselling, marriage and family therapy, etc. As I have been reviewing their central group work publications it becomes clear that this is fertile ground for continuing to dissmeninate the central ideas of the model. When my book proposal was circulated by the press for comments three of the six reviewers commented on what an interesting and novel idea this "mutual aid" was. Oh yes, I am playing tennis three times a week, year around, and enjoying more holidays. The full implications of no longer teaching hit when my wife Sheila decided to give me a present for my 70th birthday of a one-week trip to Paris and she scheduled it for the beginning of October. I guess that will go a long way to resolving my ambivalence about retiring.

Finally Larry warmly had this to say about the interview, "Thank you for this opportunity to respond to these questions. It brought back many nice memories. I hope this is what you are looking for.". Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Social Action or Reaction

2009-08-15T23:07:00.000-04:00

Social Action or Reaction
By Nathan E. Cohen
First published in The Group: The Official Publication of the American Association of Group Workers
October, 1947 Volume 10, No. 1

Group workers along with other social workers have come to accept and use the term social action but its meaning and implementation remains quite varied. Part of the difficulty is that although there is agreement on the development and adjustment of the individual as a major goal, there is not the same emphasis on another major goal, namely, the betterment of the world in which he lives. The interrelatedness of these two goals is often taken for granted but methodology is frequently aimed in only one direction. In schools of social work, for example, courses in social security, housing, labor problems, social legislation, etc. have been added to the curriculum but their purpose is not always clear to the student. In the main they are regarded as informational courses which will aid the student in better understanding the problems of individual adjustment and development. There is not yet agreement on the thesis that social workers have a responsibility for doing something about the socio-economic factors which affect the lives of the people with whom they work. A study of social action and professional education made in 1944 by Marion Hathaway revealed the following: “The schools agree that the students should understand the role of the social worker in social change but the extent to which there is agreement concerning the nature of the role was not possible to determine.”
The time has come to re-emphasize the point of view that the social work tree has two organic limbs, namely, the psychological and the socio-economic and that is not a question of either or, but rather both and, for these two limbs flow into and are fed by the same set of roots. As stated by Kenneth Pray in an article on the Social Worker and Partisan Politics, the social worker has a dual responsibility. “On the one hand he is responsible for performance, on the highest possible level, of certain social services to persons who need and seek those services because of existing circumstances in their lives related to the social setting in which they find themselves. On the other hand, he is responsible for helping to remove and to modify those limitations in the social environment that help to create, to complicate or to intensify the needs to which he ministers, or to hamper the full use of the services he makes available.” Social work is a product of the community and in its total approach must have “a more positive aim than the avoidance of neurosis,” or adjustment to status quo. This means that we must do more than merely observe the socio-economic factors to see how they affect the individuals with whom we work. We have the responsibility of helping them to understand these forces so that they might better help themselves, as well as taking actions through our professional associations and as citizens, toward the promotion of constructive social conditions.
Page 7 in original document
Defining Socially Desirable Goals
Another impasse in implementing theoretical social action is that although there may be acceptance of a definition that social action involves individual or group action for furthering social desirable goals, there is again difference of opinion as to what is socially desirable. If the majority of a group, for example, is in favor of lynching or segregation, is that the yardstick to be utilized? Obviously there must be a more basic yardstick through which to operate, one which grows out of our social philosophy. The philosophy of social work is not an accumulation or collection of unrelated beliefs but rather is based on a principle giving unity to what we do. That principle is a belief in and concern for democracy and for the people who are a part of it. In the same way that John Dewey boldly declares “democracy and sound psychology to be forever coextensive,” so too must we make clear that it is not possible to have social work as we understand it without a democratic climate, and “frankly ban all ‘social work’ postulates that are not democratically oriented.”
Since our understanding of democracy is basic to our social work beliefs it might be well first to explore the full meaning of the term and then to examine the present scene to determine whether or not the political and social climate is widening the gap between social work theory and practice. Democracy is more than a political form of government. It is an ethical concept which must permeate our total way of life. Thomas Jefferson’s first self-evident truth is that all men are created equal and from that they derive certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have learned from experience that democracy viewed only as a political form of government cannot meet this truth. Equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness demand a social and economic democracy as well as a political one.
What of the present democratic climate? A serious reading of the barometer would reveal a fluttering needle warning us of political, economic and social storms ahead. Politically, reaction is in the saddle. The pattern of approach is so reminiscent of the early days of the rise to power of the Nazis that one realizes that although Fascism was defeated on the battlefront it has not been completely eradicated on the home front. Civil liberties are being undermined steadily and thoroughly. Progressives have been split; conflict has been created within the trade unions; liberal radio commentators and others in position to affect public opinion have been removed, and fringe progressives have been frightened and silenced by the threat to civil liberties. Under this smoke screen of dangers from the “left” domestic reaction guided from the “right” has moved in steadily.
Hand in hand with this political reaction has come a narrowing of economic and social democracy. Progressive measures to insure housing, health services, expanded social security, federal aid to education, fair employment practices, removal of the poll tax, federal protection against lynching, have been buried. The cost of living is steadily rising toward new heights while the government offers the alternatives of eat less or waste less as the solution to this dangerous problem. Low income groups who must of necessity eat less are now being urged to regard this plight as a patriotic measure. Social workers are well aware of the effects of these developments on the people with whom they work, as they know first hand the frustration, anxiety, and insecurity that accompany periods of economic and social unrest. Furthermore, the inflationary climate is playing havoc with the budgets of social welfare agencies which will result in an inevitable curtailment of services.
With the health and well being of the majority of the population threatened and with social welfare services facing possible curtailment, what are the agencies doing to combat these developments? Unfortunately, the political and social climate has created a sufficient fog to engulf the leadership of many agencies and play havoc with their sense of objectives. Rather than intensify a program of social action based upon an understanding of the relationship between economic and political democracy, the tendency is to destroy whatever “social action” consciousness has been built up. The following proposed joint operations policy in regard to “controversial political matters” recently recommended by the Executive Committee of a Council of Social Agencies and the Chest Board to member agencies of the Chest are symptomatic of what lies ahead:
1. That local social service agencies shall not espouse or oppose action of any national agency on controversial matters until officially approved and cleared by the agency’s local board of directors.
2. That in sponsoring or participating in any meetings for the discussion of controversial political matters there shall be clearance with and approval by the agency’s board of directors.
3. That in any adult education programs which include discussion of controversial political matters, agency boards and staffs should give due regard to the presentation of representative and differing points of view.
4. That the quasi public status of member agencies of the Chest and the relationship existing between them and all component community groups suggests the propriety of notification being given by members of the agencies employed professional staffs, for the information of their respective boards of directors, prior to public sponsorship of political candidates or participation by such staff members in political activities. The hazard exists that such participation by a professional worker may be misinterpreted by a political viewpoint or sponsorship by the employing agency.

One can add to this obvious attempt to create a Hatch Act for private agency employees, the increased hostility toward social work unions, the attack on Public Welfare workers, and numerous other examples symbolic of the times.

The Group Worker’s Role in Social Action
The time for action is now, for it is later than we think. What can we as group workers do about all this? The question can best be answered in three parts, namely, what we can do on the job, as professional workers though our professional organizations, and as citizens.
Space does not permit more than casual treatment of the group worker’s role in social action on the job. The principles and methods through which we have always operated still hold and will be effective if we utilize them. Since the life situation is the best medium for programming there will be numerous opportunities to capture the reflection of the problems of the high cost of living, housing, discrimination, world peace, etc. as one moves along in terms of needs and interests. A real hurdle may be our own lack of sensitivity to and concern for these problems, thereby failing to stimulate or encourage already existing interests within the membership. Another major difficulty will be the attempts by boards to narrow the policy pertaining to social action similar to the experience described earlier. Group workers must stand their ground and perform a herculean task of board and committee education. It will be easier to perform this task if through local chapters of AAGW and through group work sections of councils of social agencies, group workers stand together in common purpose. The membership of the agency should be in touch with the any attempt to change policy so that they can help prevent the will of a minority being imposed on the majority. The very striving for membership participation in the formation of agency policy is in itself the beginning of social action and an important element in the training for citizenship.
As a citizen the group worker functions as any other individual in the community bringing his particular knowledge and skills into the general communal effort, but as a member of a professional organization his contribution is more specialized. The professional organization has a particular function to perform and can be most effective operating within its stated purpose. Through the professional organization the group worker is able to go beyond the more confining perspective of his agency and to identify himself with broader objectives. As revealed in the “Proposal of Principles and Procedures For Social Action” submitted by the Social Action Committee of the American Association of Group Workers, there is room for a contribution to the social scene even with the confines of “issues which directly affect the profession” and “selected issues on which our experience as group workers has some particular bearing,” especially if the latter category is interpreted in the broadest sense. The real problem, for an association that is young, is not only the delimited area of issues but also the working out of the machinery for action even within these limits. Is it assuming too much to say that we are beyond the initial stages of conflict around objectives and that any differences which arise will be in terms of means rather than ends? In a sense our ability to make rapid strides in contributing our share of effort toward social legislation is a test of the level of our profession and our expertness as group workers. It is imperative that the work of the Social Action Committee be given priority for not only must the voice of the Association be heard in the present social and economic climate but we must through our efforts give perspective and assurance to group workers on the job and in their role as citizens.
The group worker is first a citizen who, along with other citizens, has a responsibility in making democracy work. Our training and experience in the laboratory of the life situation and our concern for training for citizenship should serve as a double stimulant to carry our share of the civic load. There is always the rationalization that we must remain neutral because of our jobs but the individual who follows this course has already taken sides. Since he does nothing to stop reaction, he is really aiding and abetting the latter. Furthermore, how effective can we be in our everyday lives if we do not practice what we preach? As stated by Gordon Allport, “unless we try deliberately and persistently to affect our destinies at certain points, especially where broad political policies are concerned, and in some of the other representative areas of our life, we are not democratic personalities, we have no balance or wholeness, and society undergoes proportionate stultification.” If we are interested in democracy and in making the philosophy of our profession a working one we must become actively engaged in supporting and promoting all efforts towards social progress on every level-local, state, national and international. We must become participant citizens in a “do-democracy.”
The challenge to all of us as professional group workers is clear; social action or reaction. We must answer the challenge courageously with every ounce of knowledge and skill we have at our command. If we keep our social worker objectives uppermost in our minds and proceed in accordance with proven techniques, we cannot help but achieve progress and make an accumulative contribution to the total scene. As we face the challenge let us never forget that “no social worker is thoroughly professional in outlook who remains oblivious or indifferent to those forces within the social setting that affect problems with which he deals or the nature and effect of his service.”
References:
Allport, G.W., The Psychology of Participation, Psychological Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 May 1945, p. 127.
Dewey, John, The Philosophy of John Dewey, 1939, Chap. 9.
Hathway, Marion, Social Action and Professional Education, National Conference of Social Work, 1944, p. 365.
Pray, Kenneth L., Social Worker and Partisan Politics, The Compass, June 1945, Vol. XXVI, p.3.

Group Work with People with Substance Use Disorders

2008-01-15T13:16:00.000-05:00

In this entry, I present a discussion on group work with people with Substance Use Disorders. This entry has been selected for publication in The Encyclopedia of Social Work with Groups edited by Alex Gitterman and Robert Salmon published by the Haworth Press. The entry is presented here in accordance with the publication contract's section on preprint distribution rights. Stay tuned for more information about the Encyclopedia as it becomes available. Haworth Press can be reached at this link, Haworth Press Homepage.

Group treatment is the cornerstone of most abstinence based programs in the United States (Stinchfield et al, 1994). The popularity of group treatment for people with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) can be best explained by the resonance of mutual aid with the demands of achieving and maintaining abstinence. The power of mutual aid processes, including the combined effect of mutual support and demand, in helping people get sober was phenomenologically discovered by the originators of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose success is likely to have lent credence to early efforts at providing group treatment with this population (Blume, 2002; Flores, 1997). Furthermore, collaborative, non-exploitive, mutual aid based relationships assuage the isolation, shame and stigma experienced by people with SUDs. Quite simply, mutual aid heals! At the same time, people with SUDs are likely to experience difficulty in trusting others and forming healthy attachments, a point which should inform the interventions of the worker. This entry will apply concepts and practice principles drawn from the Mutual Aid Model which can be integrated with a variety of group approaches with this population (Gitterman, 2004; Shulman, 2006).

Tasks of Early Recovery
Substance Use Disorders are best conceptualized as chronic, relapsing brain diseases with biopsychosocial antecedents and consequences (Leshner, 1999). Recovery from SUDs is an ongoing, perhaps life-long process with discrete developmental tasks and challenges to be found in early, middle, and ongoing stages. Typically clients in agency based substance abuse treatment are in the early or middle stage of recovery. The primary goals of the early and middle stages of recovery include achieving and maintaining abstinence. The nature of the work is primarily cognitive and behavioral, as opposed to being insight oriented (SAMHSA, 2005).

Common early recovery tasks include enhancing motivation for behavior change; learning about SUDs and recovery; identifying and verbalizing feelings; strengthening coping skills; cultivating self-esteem and self-care; and developing a sober support network (SAMHSA, 2005). Additional work exists for group members who have been mandated to treatment, which can be characterized as ‘transforming to clienthood’ (Rooney & Chovanec, 2004).

Orienting Knowledge
The effectiveness of group work is enhanced when the worker possesses knowledge both about group work as well as substance use disorders. Salient orienting knowledge includes an understanding of the biopsychosocial implications of SUDs; the concepts, principles and structure of 12 Step Fellowships; the Transtheoretical Model of the Stages of Change; and the principles and skills of motivational interviewing (Flores, 1997; Miller & Rollnick, 1991; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; SAMHSA, 2005).

Strengths and Resiliencies
Empowerment oriented practice necessitates that the worker view the group member from a strengths perspective. Furthermore, the mutual aid based group provides an opportunity for members to identify and experience their own and each others strengths. The opportunities that exist in group work to experience mutual aid both strengthen self-esteem and affirm the value of a sober network of peers. Members should be encouraged to view their capacity to share feelings, life experiences and taboo topics as individual and collective strengths. Furthermore, the quality of mutual aid becomes enriched as members move through the recovery process and draw upon their accumulated experience in navigating ‘life on life’s terms’ sober.

Recommendations for Helping
Preparation is enhanced when the worker tunes in to the members needs and feelings regarding both their being in treatment and in recovery. The stage of change model provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the needs of members as they engage with the change process. Accurately tuning in to these factors will help the worker identify topics that need to be addressed in early group sessions.

Workers should plan to respond to queries about their own recovery status. However, worker disclosure is secondary to the sub-text of such a query. Often members are really wondering if the worker will be helpful, trustworthy and non-judgmental. Additionally, such a request for self disclosure provides an opportunity for the worker to clarify worker role and member role. Of note, evidence indicates that worker recovery status has no impact on treatment outcome (Culbreth, 2000).

The worker in the beginning phase should actively attend to enhancing motivation for change and issues related to trust and safety. Members are likely to have ambivalent feelings about getting sober (Milgram & Rubin, 1992). The use of the mutual aid process, the dialectic process, is resonant with principles of motivational interviewing. Members can be encouraged to discuss the pros and cons of being in treatment and of getting sober. As the worker responds empathically and points out member commonalties organic opportunities arise to foster safety and trust as well as enhance motivation for change.

The work of the group is enhanced when member strengths and contributions are both encouraged and recognized. In an outpatient setting the worker stimulated the strengths in numbers phenomenon when the group agreed to accompany one member to his first A.A. meeting as he had been afraid to go on his own. In a residential setting, as members began looking for apartments in the community they often were shown dilapidated apartments in drug-infested neighborhoods. In one session, Francis shared her despair and stated, “I felt like getting high; I got sober to live in a crack-house!? But instead of getting high, I called my sponsor”. In the next session another member recounted the same experience but added, “I thought of you Francis. I thought to myself I couldn’t let you or the group down. So, I followed your lead and instead of getting high I called my sponsor.” The worker asked Francis what she felt in knowing that she had helped someone protect their sobriety. Her eyes welled up with tears as she said, “it feels good to help. All my life I had no help to offer anyone; if anything I was a taker”.

As most groups in substance abuse treatment settings are open-ended, typically members leave but the group continues. Variations on endings exist when members relapse and prematurely leave the program against medical advice. Ample time should be allotted for members to express their feelings and for the member who is leaving to consider their ongoing relapse prevention plan.

Finally sessional work is enhanced when the worker helps the group review the purpose and format of the group in each session, in part because of the short-term memory loss associated with early recovery and to help distinguish the work of one group from that of another. Sessional endings provide an opportunity for members to identify the salience of the group encounter with their own recovery process.

References
Blume, S. (2002). Group psychotherapy in the treatment of addictive disorders: Past, present and future. In Brook, D.W. and Spitz, H.I. (Eds.) (2002). The group therapy of substance abuse (pp. 411-428). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Medical Press.

Culbreth, JR, (2000). Substance abuse counselors with and without a personal history of chemical dependency: A review of the literature. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 18(2), 67-82.

Flores, P.J. (1997). Group psychotherapy with addicted populations: An integration of twelve-step and psychodynamic theory (2cnd edition). New York: The Haworth Press.

Gitterman, A. (2004). The mutual aid model. In C. Garvin, L. Gutierrez, and M. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 93-110). New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Leshner, A.I. (1999). Science-based views of drug addiction and its treatment. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(14), 1314-1316.

Milgram, D. and Rubin, J. (1992). Resisting the resistance: Involuntary substance abuse group therapy. Social Work with Groups, 15(1), 95-110.

Miller, W.R. and Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behaviors. New York: The Guilford Press.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102-1114.

Rooney, R. and Chovanec, M. (2004). Involuntary groups. In C. Garvin, L. Gutierrez, and M. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 212-226). New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Shulman, L. (2006). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (Fifth edition). Belmont. CA: Thompson.

Stinchfield, R., Owen, P. and Winters, K.C. (1994). Group therapy for substance abuse: A review of the empirical research. In A. Fuhriman and G. Burlingame (Eds.) Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis (pp. 458-488). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (2005). Substance abuse treatment: Group therapy. (Treatment Improvement Protocol No. 41). Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. (SMA) 05-3991. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.

Mutual Aid Based Group Work

2008-01-12T15:21:00.000-05:00

Andrew Cicchetti (Member, AASWG, NYC Chapter) presents in this entry a discussion of mutual aid based group work. A point derived from this discussion is that the social worker-led group that seeks to cultivate mutual aid is better designated as 'mutual aid based group work', rather than 'mutual aid group' as is often the case in the social work literature. The term 'mutual aid group' should be reserved for the mutual aid/self-help group. Furthermore, the term 'mutual aid based group work' more accurately reflects the dynamic that emerges from the presence of a worker invested in maximizing the group's capacity for mutual aid.

Mutual Aid in the Social Work Group
Mutual aid as group work technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on mutual aid's resonance with humanistic values (Glassman, 2002) and the following propositions: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006). Mutual aid transactions that occur amongst and between members stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes and yield therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits for the members (Breton, 1990;Northen & Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 2006).

The role of mutual aid processes in the social work group is illuminated by Gitterman (2006), a contemporary expert on mutual aid based group work from the field of social work. Gitterman (2006) contends that “mutual aid is the major rationale for the provision of group services” (p.93). Gitterman (2006) elaborates on mutual aid in the social work group noting that, “as members become involved with one another, they develop helping relationships and become invested in each other and in participating in the group” (p.93). The mutual aid processes that unfold help group members “to experience their concerns and life issues as universal”, “to reduce isolation and stigma”, “to offer and receive help from each other”, and “to learn from each other’s views, suggestions and challenges” (Gitterman, 2006, p.93).

The Concept of Mutual Aid
The concept of mutual aid was first elaborated by Kropotkin (1903), one of the most important evolutionary theorists and socio-biologists of his time, as an evolutionary theory to expand upon that proposed by Darwin which underscored the role of struggle and competition encapsulated in the notion of ‘natural selection’ amongst species, an idea often understood as ‘the survival of the fittest’. Kropotkin (1903) argued that mutual aid as exemplified in efforts at cooperation in the face of common environmental threats was a significant factor in the survival of species. Upon being influenced by a lecture entitled “On the Law of Mutual Aid” delivered at the Russian Congress of Naturalists in January, 1880, by noted zoologist, Professor Kessler, and through his own observations of a number of species that placed communal needs before individual needs rather than engaging in competition for survival, Kropotkin formulated the theory of mutual aid (Kropotkin, 1903). Kropotkin underscored the role of mutual aid with this observation:

“…wherever I saw animal life in abundance…on the lakes…in the colonies of rodents…in the migrations of birds…
in a migration of fallow dear…I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which passed before my eyes, I saw in it a feature of greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution” (p.ii).

The role of mutual aid in human society was observed by Kropotkin (1903) as well. Kropotkin (1903) observed:

“the mutual aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history" (p.145).

He noted the role of mutual aid in primitive societies as well as his then contemporary society. He found himself “struck with the immense part which mutual aid and mutual support principles play even now-a-days in human life” (Kropotkin, 1903, p.148). Principles of mutual aid are operating in spontaneous neighborliness; utopian cooperatives; trade unions; labor unions; and the settlement house movement (Katz and Bender, 1976; Lee and Swenson, 2005).

The concept of mutual aid bears resemblance to that of social support (Lee and Swenson, 2005). Social support is thought to buffer or cushion the individual from potentially harmful or physiological conditions (Caplan, 1974). Social support can include professional helping offered by an individual worker; this however, represents a departure from the concept of mutual aid as treatment technology. The bi-directional nature of mutual aid is more clearly illuminated when the concept of social support from peers is paired with the helper-therapy principle (Lee & Swenson, 2005; Reissman, 1965). This principle hypothesizes that helping others helps the helper (Reissman, 1965), a hypothesis supported by empirical findings (Roberts et al, 1999). This concept is resonant with the concept of altruism, identified by Yalom (1995) as a therapeutic factor available through group therapy.
Furthermore, Reissman (1965) suggests that the principle impacts the group as a whole:

“not only are individual group members aided in the group, but the group as a whole may be greatly strengthened in manifold ways as it continually offers assistance to individual group members” (p.32).

The Group as Mutual Aid System
While mutual aid has been inarguably a feature of social group work since the earliest of incarnations, William Schwartz in introducing the phrase brought greater primacy to the concept and the view of the group as an enterprise in mutual aid. The model originally proposed by Schwartz in 1961 is often referred to as the Mutual Aid Model.

The Mutual Aid Model of group work practice (Gitterman, 2004) has its roots in the practice theory proposed by Schwartz (1961) which was introduced in the article, “The Social Worker in the Group”. Schwartz (1961) envisioned the group as an “enterprise in mutual aid, an alliance of individuals who need each other in varying degrees, to work on certain common problems” (p.266). Schwartz elaborated:

“the fact is that this is a helping system in which clients need each other as well as the worker. This need to use each other, to create not one but many helping relationships, is a vital ingredient of the group process and constitutes a need over and above the specific tasks for which the group was formed” (1961, p. 266).

Schwartz (1976) regarded this approach as resonant with the demands of a variety of group types including, natural and formed; therapeutic and task; open and closed; and voluntary and mandatory. Both the Mutual Aid Model and the concept of mutual aid have endured and continue to inform social work practice with groups (Gitterman, 2004). While sometimes referred to as social group work, Schwartz (1977) preferred the designation 'social work with groups'.

Schwartz (1961) premised his approach to practice on ideas expressed by Kropotkin (1903), Dewey (1910), Mead (1934) and Simmel (1955) that illuminated the nature of the relationship between the individual and society. The model was premised on the proposition that there exists a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship between the individual and society, a dynamic encapsulated in the small group (Schwartz, 1961). This type of mutualistic symbiosis was expressed by Schwartz (1971) as the “need to use each other” to work on resolving common problems (p.7).

Schwartz (1977) contrasted this model with approaches that failed to collaboratively work with groups. More importantly he rejected the medical model wherein the worker “decides what is wrong”, “labels it” and prescribes the treatment (Schwartz, 1977, p.1331). This was not to say that the worker avoids using prior professionally obtained knowledge but rather the worker uses this knowledge to deepen “preliminary empathy” (Schwartz, 1977, p.1334). A similar perspective was advanced by Tropp (1977b) who suggested that the worker should employ a phenomenological approach and attend to “current group and individual behavior rather than on prior personality diagnosis” (p.96).

A concept common amongst social group work approaches has been the ‘two-client’ perspective which views both the individual and the group as the two clients engaged with the worker (Trecker, 1948; Schwartz, 1977; Steinberg, 2004). For Schwartz (1977) this dualism was resolved by observing that they both are inextricably linked, engaged in reciprocal relationship. Both the individual and the group “needs the other for its own life and growth” argued Schwartz (1961, p. 153). From this stance flowed Schwartz’ beliefs about the mediating role of the worker, a role he argued belonged to the social work profession at large (Schwarz, 1961, 1971, 1977). Schwartz (1961) viewed the group as an organic whole and identified “the group organism as a complex of moving, interdependent human beings” (p.18). Expanding on this perspective he identified four main features of the group: the group is a

“collective, in which people face and interact with each other; people need each other; the purpose of the group is oriented by needing to work on common problems or tasks; and the work of the group is embedded in the function of the agency” (Schwartz, 1976, p. 185).

Schwartz (1971) proposed that the tasks of the worker and the members of the group are interdependent but different, an idea he expressed as “parallel process” (Schwartz, 1971, p.10). The members of the group are charged with both helping themselves and each other (Schwartz, 1971, 1976). The nature of the help could be understood as deriving from the exchange of members’ personal views and experience as well as the expression of feeling (Schwartz, 1977).

Drawing upon ideas about the use of time as expressed by Rank, Taft and Robinson Schwartz (1961) conceptualized a preferred sequence of worker activity expressed as 'the phases of helping'. These phases occur over the course of the group’s life cycle and include: preparation, beginning, work and ending phases (Schwartz, 1961; Gitterman, 2004). This framework has relevance for conceptualizing the sequencing of worker activity in each group session as well (Birnbaum and Cicchetti, 2000; Birnbaum, Mason & Cicchetti, 2002; Shalinsky, 1983; Shulman, 2006).

The model proposed by Schwartz followed a historical, theoretical path along the mainstream of social group work (Papell and Rothman, 1980; Tropp, 1977a). According to Tropp (1977a):

“the mainstream was more deeply explored by William Schwartz, who further elaborated the concepts of group function and worker involvement, while adding the dimensions of the mutual aid phenomenon and the contractual relation between worker and group” (p.1322).

Noting the importance of this model, Papell and Rothman (1966) had identified the model’s primary contribution to social group work practice theory: “its outstanding contribution” is as “the construct of a mutual aid system with professional interventions” (p. 130). For Papell and Rothman, the conceptual strength of the model lay in the observation that

“what had been vaguely referred to in the past as ‘helping members help themselves’ has acquired a higher level of theoretical statement. It is now possible to consider the attributes and culture of a specialized system and to transmit the skills necessary to support its realization. This is probably the single most important contribution that group work method can make to the social work profession at large (italics mine, 1966, p. 130).

Sharpening Papell and Rothman’s observation, Schwartz (1976) would note that the worker invested in cultivating mutual aid had “the additional task of not only helping people help themselves, but to help each other as well” (p. 194).

Mutual aid would come to be regarded as a hallowed concept in the practice of social group work (Tropp, 1977b). Hartford (1976) noted that the cultivation of mutual aid had become central to generic group work practice. Echoing this observation, Papell and Rothman (1980) noted that “the conception of the group as a mutual aid system had become a universal one in all of group work practice” and had become a feature of the ‘mainstream’ of practice (1980, p. 9).

Mutual Aid is Central to Social Work with Groups
Social workers have elaborated upon mutual aid in the social work group. Schwartz (1961, 1971, 1976, 1977) had proposed that the social work group engage in problem solving; employ authentic, affect-laden communication; accommodate expressions of difference and conflict; and discuss ‘taboo’ topics. Shulman (1979, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2006) advanced a conceptual framework of mutual aid processes comprised of the following 10 types of processes: sharing data; the dialectic process; entering taboo areas; the ‘all in the same boat’ phenomenon; developing a universal perspective; mutual support; mutual demand; individual problem solving; rehearsal; and the strength in numbers phenomenon.

Papell and Rothman (1980) indicated mutual aid was central to the mainstream of social work practice with groups. Middleman and Wood (1990) echoed the perspective advanced by Papell and Rothman (1980). Glassman and Kates (1990) tethered mutual aid processes to humanistic values and democratic principles. Kurland and Salmon (1992) promoted mutual aid based problem solving as an antidote to casework in a group. Breton (1990, 1994, 2004) encouraged group workers to view mutual aid as integral to empowerment oriented practice. Northen and Kurland (2001) presented “the dynamic forces of mutual aid” that builds upon the contributions from group psychotherapy research as well as the conceptualization articulated by Shulman (p.26). Their elaboration includes the following processes/dynamics: mutual support; cohesiveness; quality of relationships; universality; a sense of hope; altruism; acquisition of knowledge and skills; catharsis; reality testing; and group control (Northen and Kurland, 2001, p.25/26).

The Worker and other Members Collaborate
Mutual aid based group work draws upon the strengths possessed by the group's membership. A social worker invested in potentiating the group's capacity for mutual aid views the group as an enterprise in mutual aid; helps group members identify common ground; views her role as a mediator of the individual/group connection; helps the group understand the benefit of mutual aid; helps the group work through conflict rather than avoiding it; and supports the group in identifying and removing obstacles to mutual aid (Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006). A social worker invested in being the expert, having control over the group process, and engaging in casework in the group setting is likely to truncate the emergence and power of mutual aid (Kurland & Salmon, 1992; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). In structured groups wherein the worker is called to share her expertise, in order to qualify as social work with groups the worker seeks to integrate opportunties for mutual aid (Middleman & Wood, 1990).

Special skills are required to cultivate mutual aid in the social work group. The social work literature is replete with discussions of these special skills (Gitterman & Shulman, 2005; Glassman & Kates, 1990; Kurland & Salmon, 1998; Middleman & Wood, 1990; Steinberg, 2004). Of note, for the purpose of this brief discussion, is an approach to mutual aid based problem solving that allows the worker to engage the group in the work of solving individual problems thereby avoiding the pitfall of practicing casework in the group. This approach to problem solving highlights the interaction between worker skill and group member expertise in helping each other and themselves simultaneously.

Kurland and Salmon (1992) have articulated an approach to problem solving in the small group that draws upon mutual aid. Mutual aid based problem solving has been posed as an approach that considers the needs of the individual and the group simultaneously (Kurland & Salmon, 1992). Drawing upon the problem solving process proposed by progressive educator John Dewey, Kurland and Salmon (1992) have presented an eight step model for mutual aid based problem solving: 1) an individual member raises a problem or issue of concern; 2) the problem is clearly identified by the individual and the group; 3) the problem is explored as the group elicits more information, listens attentively, responds empathically, and communicates understanding; 4) the worker asks group members to recount situations similar or relevant to the concern under current discussion; 5) the group generates possible solutions to the individual's problems upon consideration of the experiences shared by other group members; 6) the worker and the group members help the individual decide on a course of action and think through an implementation plan; 7) the worker asks all the group members what they have gained from the discussion; and 8) in a future session the worker or other group members follow up with the individual about their concern (p.9). The effectiveness of problem solving when the solution calls for individual behavior change is likely to be enhanced when the worker utilizes as part of her conceptual framework the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model (Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992) and Motivational Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). Furthermore, Motivational Interviewing, an individual counseling technique can be applied to the group setting and is highly resonant with mutual aid processes, especially the dialectic process (Cicchetti, 2007).

Mutual Aid Group vs. Mutual Aid Based Group Work
Mutual aid is the fuel that drives both mutual aid groups, such as Alcoholics' Anonymous, as well as mutual aid based group work. While the term 'mutual aid group' has often been used to designate a social worker-led group (i.e. Gitterman & Shulman, 2005), this term is better used to denote the mutual aid/self-help group, such as 12 Step Fellowships, so as to avoid confusion amongst social workers and the general public as well as conflation of these two very different groups. While similar processes occur amongst and between members in mutual aid/self help groups as those found in social work groups, the manner in which these processes occur is different, often occurring in dyadic exchanges or through sharing without an exchange amongst members. Evidence indicates that worker-led groups potentially yield a wider range of mutual aid processes due to the special skills utilized by the worker (Lieberman, 1983). Flowing from this, the term 'mutual aid based group work' serves as a more accurate descriptor of this type of group, as it reflects the activity of the group worker and the group members who are engaged in the exchange of mutual aid. For this reason it can be said that through mutual aid based group work, the skilled worker can potentiate the presence of mutual aid, maximizing the potential for therapeutic, supportive, and empowering benefits.

Summary
In sum, this entry sought to demonstrate that in social work groups mutual aid has been a central, if not defining, element. At the same time, special knowledge needs to be skillfully utilized by a group worker who acts in such as way as to encourage the group members to act. Through the parallel process of worker activity and member activity the group is transformed into a system of mutual aid. The designation mutual aid based group work, it was argued, accurately describes this type of group as it reflects both worker and member activity. The term 'mutual aid group' is better reserved to designate groups, such as Alcoholics' Anonymous, that do not include professional leadership.

Selected References:
(All Available Upon Request)

Breton, M. (1990). Learning from social group work tradition. Social Work with Groups, 13(3), 21-34.

Gitterman, A. and Shulman, L. (Editors) (2005). Mutual aid groups, vulnerable & resilient populations, and the life cycle (3rd edition). New York: Columbia University Press.

Kropotkin, P. (1903). Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. McLean, Virginia: IndyPublish.com.

Riessman, F. (1965). The Helper Therapy Principle. Social Work, 10, April, 27-32.

Schwartz, W. (1959/1994). Group work and the social scene. In T. Berman-Rossi (ed.). Social Work: The collected writings of William Schwartz (pp.202-220). Itasca, Ill: Peacock Publishers.

Schwartz, W. (1961). The social worker in the group. In B. Saunders (Ed.), New perspectives on services to groups: Theory, organization, practice (pp. 7-29), New York: National Association of Social Workers.

Schwartz, W. (1964/1994). Analysis of papers presented on working definitions of group work practice. In T. Berman-Rossi (ed.). Social Work: The collected writings of William Schwartz (pp.310-308). Itasca, Ill: Peacock Publishers.

Schwartz, W. (1971). On the use of groups in social work practice. In Schwartz, W. and Zalba, S. (Eds.). (1971). The practice of group work (pp. 3-24). New York: Columbia University Press.

Schwartz, W. (1976). Between client and system: The mediating function. In R.W. Roberts and H. Northen (Eds.), Theories of social work with groups (pp.171-197). New York: Columbia University Press.

Schwartz, W. (1977). Social group work: The interactionist approach. In J.B. Turner (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Work (17th Edition), 2:1328-1338. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Schwartz, W. (1986). The group work tradition and social work practice. In A. Gitterman and L. Shulman (Eds.), The legacy of William Schwartz: Group practice as shared interaction (pp. 7-27). New York: Haworth Press.

Schwartz, W. (1994). Social work with groups: The search for a method (1968-1972). In T. Berman-Rossi (ed.). Social Work: The collected writings of William Schwartz (pp.1-194). Itasca, Ill: Peacock Publishers.

Schwartz, W. and Zalba, S. (Eds.). (1971). The practice of group work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shulman, L. (2006). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (Fifth edition). Belmont. CA: Thompson.

Steinberg, D.M. (2004). The mutual–aid approach to working with groups: Helping people to help each other (second edition). New York: The Haworth Press.

Tropp, E. (1977b). A humanistic foundation for group work practice (second edition). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

~~~~Andrew Cicchetti

Mark Doel's Using Groupwork

2008-01-11T08:50:00.000-05:00

We asked Mark Doel to discuss with us his reflections on his recently published book, Using Groupwork (Routledge). In his own words: As any-one who has written a book will tell you, it's not something to undertake lightly. I'm fortunate that I enjoy writing and the words come fairly readily, but the research behind a book is always a time-consuming and, at times, frustrating activity. One thing that keeps me going is passion. I haven't yet written a book that I have not felt passionate about - it's probably a disadvantage as well as an advantage! Using Groupwork was no exception.

What I think is radical about the book is the fact that it uses practitioners' accounts of their groupwork as its main reference point. This goes far beyond the use of 'vignettes', which we'd probably expect in any book written primarily for practitioners. I feel very strongly that we must find ways of gathering practitioners' experiences of groups and groupwork in a systematic way and broadcasting them to a wide audience. It's theory-building from the base. Of course, there must be proper permissions and privacies in place before we can go public with this knowledge. And the accounts need to move beyond the anecdotal; from description through analysis to reflection. They must be systematic.

A nine-year action research project with a state social work agency in England was the site for the development of groupwork 'portfolios' for continuing professional development. In these portfolios, practitioners used a common framework to collect their experiences of groupwork, to describe them in a systematic fashion, to relate them to their reading, to analyse them in relation to their understanding of theory, to evaluate using participative evaluative methods with group members, and, finally, to reflect on all of this process. I learned enormously from my part in this project, not just from the portfolios, but from the workshops and consultations which were part of the project. The Essential Groupworker which I wrote with my co-facilitator, Catherine Sawdon, was the first expression of this project.

In Using Groupwork I went on to choose nine groups from the project. These groups were chosen to include the widest range of groupwork approaches and group memberships. I used the groupworkers' portfolios of these nine groups as reference points for the content of the book, so most of the quotes are taken directly from the portfolios rather than quoting from academic sources. Of course, there are methodological limitations to this approach - mainly the reliability of self-report, especially when it is gathered for purposes of professional assessment (as these portfolios were). However, the knowledge I gained of the groups and groupworkers through the workshops and consultations went further than most researchers might expect to achieve, and I feel confident that the accounts of groupwork in these portfolios are accurate. They provide a vivid account of the group from the practitioners' perspective (and they included group members' perspectives, too). If anything, I think that the groupworkers were more inclined to underestimate than overestimate their part in the frequently dramatic changes experienced by group members.

I really hope that the systematic gathering of practitioners' work can become routine and that this book will encourage other similar attempts. Portfolios of practice, systematically written and incorporating descriptive, analytical and reflective elements, can provide a powerful archive for group experience and groupwork practice. From this we can develop theory on the back of practice. Also, it seems reasonable to suppose that practitioners relate more readily to the recorded experiences of other practitioners; certainly, and this has been confirmed by feedback I have received. Whilst this approach 'butters no parsnips' with the wider academic community, nor with those who determine how research funding is distributed (here in the UK, in any case), we groupworkers are no strangers to the left field, and building theory from the bottom up rather than top down, comes naturally to us.

~~~~Mark Doel

To purchase your copy of Using Groupwork in the United Kingdom, click here.
To purchase your copy of Using Groupwork in the United States, click here.
To purchase your copy of Using Groupwork in Canada, click here.

A Conversation with Katy Papell

2008-01-10T16:54:00.002-05:00

Katy Papell (pictured center with Carol Cohen and Adelphi doctoral students) laughed when I suggested that she was a living legend for the group work community, but given all that she has contributed to our professional community it is difficult for me to think of a more suitable descriptor. After all, Katy, along with Beulah Rothman, was a founding editor of Social Work with Groups: A Journal of Community and Clinical Practice as well as a founding member of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, along with others such as Beulah Rothman and Ruth Middleman. Together, Katy and Beulah published seminal papers about social work with groups, including Social group work models: possession and heritage in 1962 and Relating the mainstream model of social work with groups to group psychotherapy and the structured group approach in 1980. Dr. Papell also published and delivered presentations around the world on social work education, curriculum design, and student learning styles.

On the cusp of her 91st birthday which takes place on November 12, during this interview Katy was particularly mindful of her age and the experience of aging. As we spoke I sensed that she has been reflecting on her professional contributions as well as her personal experiences and the interaction between the two spheres of her life for awhile now. While some details and distant memories escaped her as we spoke, it was clear that she has been sitting with the important emotional themes in her life, her truths, if you will. Perhaps the most profound theme for Katy seemed to be her awareness of the healing power of “human togetherness”.

In our interview which took place on a chilly Autumn morning by phone we discussed many personal and group work related topics, including the journal, the inspiration for beginning the AASWG, Beulah Rothman, her academic career and theoretical contributions. I also heard from Katy a deep desire to know that she has made a contribution to the field and was impressed to discover that she wants to continue contributing. What stood out though was her deep appreciation for the healing power of ‘human togetherness’. Early in our conversation Katy read an excerpt from a paper she delivered at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work where Katy recieved her D.S.W. which underscored her feelings about togetherness.

A group represents human togetherness. It is not that the group creates the togetherness for the members. Rather it is the other way around-its members must create the group, and if they are unable to do this there is nothing but a collection of individuals striving helplessly for the unknown. Humane human relationship is group membership successfully created. When people-even just two-try to create a group and fail, the search for relationship-for togetherness-becomes tension, frustration, unfulfillment, anger, conflict, failure, and even violence.

Fulfillment in relationship does not come automatically to us humans. We each bring our very selves to the process, each of us with the complexity of our emerging needs. The human process of “grouping” constantly calls upon us to participate in meeting the needs of others in yearning for connectedness. Of course grouping is difficult, and always will be, as it will always be a fundamental human process that can be misused or fail.

….The skills of leadership of…humans in their groups is not technique alone; there is much knowledge but it is not technology. It requires our eternal efforts at togetherness…our own engagement with humanity.

For Katy this was how she has experienced and taught group work. As I sat back and listened to her ideas I couldn’t help but agree that as group workers we are called to fully engage with our own humanity and our own needs and tensions about togetherness; more than that though, as human beings we are called to connect, collaborate, and create community. Katy indicated this quite forcefully as we were discussing the application of attachment theory as a framework for understanding the healing power of group work, when she stated “aloness creates illness”. As we discussed other topics, Katy’s love for people, for groups, and the idea of ‘human togetherness’ always stood out.

On Beulah Rothman and Their Relationship

Beulah and I always laughed and said here we were, the Jewish girl from the Bronx and the WASP. As we worked together we each brought something to the other. Beulah was a talented teacher and wonderfully articulate and compelling. She eventually went to Barry (University) and graduated a lot of good group workers. I was much more reflective, philosophical…we wrote together but I had to prove myself and develop my own ideas and go further to write on my own. However, the work with Beulah was important to the profession.

On the Journal

In 1978 Bill Cohen of Haworth Press got in touch with Beulah and we agreed to do it (become Founding editors of the Journal). We were intentional about subtitling the journal A Journal of Clinical and Community Practice as we wanted to convey that group work was an effort to hold together the totality of the human experience as well as the totality of social work with groups. For us the primary philosophical and theoretical underpinning of social group work is that one could not grow alone…one can grow alone…but to try is illness.

Also, we called the journal social work with groups, an idea that is broader than social group work. Early on the idea of social work with groups was very important but for now I find it easier to identify with social group work, because the group work method has struggled (for survival in academic programs).

On the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups

At Adelphi University we organized the curriculum starting with the idea of 'foundation' and developed one of the first course outlines designed to teach group work, case work and community organizing. We connected this idea to the belief that being a professional encompassed different aspects of humanity...the individual, community and group. An unintended impact of our efforts (as well as the Social Work profession at large was the erosion of group work in the acedemic setting). There was so much longing for opportunities to connect with other group workers.

It was at a CSWE conference in 1979 at a hotel in Boston that the the AASWG has its origins. Three group workers including myself, Beulah Rothman and Ruth Middleman put up a sign inviting all interested group workers to join us at a small meeting in a hotel room. So many people came that the hotel needed to open up another room for us. The enthusiasm was marvelous and we decided to have a symposium in October. The first Symposium was held in Cleveland, Ohio in honor of Grace Coyle (pictured) and held at Case Western Reserve University where Grace Coyle had taught group work as part of the MSW program . She kept the social action aspect of group work alive. We met in March and weren't sure we could prepare the conference for October, but it was Beulah's energy and positiveness that assured us we could do it. That first symposium was like a group work party.

Work with Involuntary Group Members

2008-01-09T11:58:00.000-05:00

The dynamics of working with involuntary group members have been addressed in the social work with groups’ literature in general (Behroozi, 1992; Rooney and Chovanec, 2004) and most notably with regard to the group treatment of people with SUDs in particular (Milgram & Rubin, 1992). The concept of “treating” involuntary clients has raised concerns about professional ethics and values as well as treatment effectiveness (Behroozi, 1992; Breton, 1993; Milgram & Rubin, 1992; Rooney & Chovanec, 2004). The involuntary client can be understood as someone who is pressured by some external source to seek social services (Rooney & Chovanec, 2004). Mandated involuntary clients are pressured to seek services as a result of the legal system (Rooney & Chovanec, 2004).

Rooney and Chovanec (2004) identify reactance theory as an explanatory framework for the attitude and behaviors of the involuntary client and the mandated involuntary client. Reactance theory suggests that as a person is pressured to relinquish certain behaviors as a result of treatment efforts they experience reactance, “a motivational drive to restore those free behaviors” (Rooney & Chovanec, 2004, p.213). Rooney and Chovanec (2004) suggest an approach that draws upon the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing in identifying strategies for engaging involuntary clients in the group process (both discussed below). Behroozi (1992) has noted tensions between the concept of working with mandated clients and professional ethics, such as the belief in fostering self determination. The chief concern is whether or not “involuntary applicants” are in fact “clients”, as to become a client of a professional social worker requires “mutual agreement” (Behroozi, 1992, p.224). In social work practice, the primary task given this issue is to help the applicant “transform to clienthood” (Behroozi, 1992, p.224). In the absence of this transformation, the mandated “client” is likely to be superficially compliant and deny they have any problems warranting social work attention (Behroozi, 1992; Breton, 1993; Milgram & Rubin, 1992).

Behroozi (1992) recommends that the primary strategy in transforming the applicant to clienthood is supporting them in owning the choice to be in treatment, as the best possible option given the range available to them. The worker should help the applicant identify and acknowledge feelings about being mandated to treatment, be given ample opportunity to exercise choice, and encouraged to identify their perception of their problems (Behroozi, 1992).

The process of transforming to clienthood has implications for group practice (Behroozi, 1992; Milgram & Rubin, 1992). Behroozi (1992) drawing upon the work of Lacoursiere’s developmental stage model identifies an additional pre-treatment stage identified as ‘negative orientation’ which is characterized by open hostility and suspicion. The work includes helping members identify and express their feelings; “examine the reasons for their reluctance”; “consider what would happen if they were not in the group”; and help participants “appreciate the usefulness of the group experience” (Behroozi, 1992, p.235).

The transtheoretical model of the stages of change and motivational interviewing should inform the worker's approach to working with groups comprised of mandated members. These two frameworks for promoting behavior change are not specific to mandated clients but have resonance with the challenges to be found in working with mandated group members.

Stages of Change
The transtheoretical model of behavior change posits that intentional behavior change can be best understood as a multistage process with specific challenges and tasks to be found in each stage (Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992). This model illuminates the behavioral change process and has implications for treatment of people with SUDs and other addictive behaviors (Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992).The five stages of the change process according to this model include: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992). This model is best understood as a non-linear one with potential recycling through stages (Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992).Precontemplation is “the stage where there is no intention to change behavior” (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992, p.1102). Contemplation is the stage where people are aware that a problem exists but are not yet ready to commit to change oriented action (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente, Norcross, 1992). The preparation stage is characterized by deepened motivation to change and tentative efforts at change, such as reducing alcohol or substance use somewhat (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente, Norcross, 1992). The action stage is characterized by nascent healthy behavior and environment modification so as to support change (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente, Norcross, 1992). Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross (1992) suggest that people can be classified as being in the action stage if they have successfully changed their behavior for a period of “one day to six months” (p.1104). Maintenance occurs from six months up to an indeterminate length of time, even a lifetime (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente, Norcross, 1992). People are likely to relapse and recycle back to a previous stage (DiClemente, 1993; Prochaska, DiClemente, Norcross, 1992).

Motivational Interviewing
Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) builds upon the stage of change perspective and motivational interviewing (Miller et al, 1995; Miller, 2002). The central idea of the MET approach is that the intervention should match the needs of the patient according to their placement within the stages of change framework (Miller et al, 1995; Miller, 2002).The intervention strategy draws upon counseling principles proposed by Miller and Rollnick (1991), referred to as motivational interviewing, to enhance motivation for change and movement from one stage to the next. The primary practice principles include: expressing empathy; developing discrepancy; avoiding argumentation; rolling with resistance; and supporting self-efficacy (Miller and Rollnick, 1991; Miller et al, 1995; Miller, 2002).

Kurt Sonnenfeld's Reflections on the AAGW

2008-01-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

We asked Dr. Kurt Sonnenfeld (AASWG Member, NYC) to reflect on his membership in the American Association of Group Workers (AAGW), a group work association that preceded the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. The AAGW was formed in 1946 and disbanded in 1955 when that organization and six others merged to form the National Association of Social Workers. When we asked Kurt to write this entry he also told us that he is soon to be the recipient of the Lifetime Service Award from the Department of Youth and Community Development in collaboraton with the Association of New York State Youth Bureaus. We take this opportunity then to both thank and congratulate him for this well-deserved recognition.

The University of Pennsylvania website provides the following information about Kurt: "Dr. Sonnenfeld is a retired career employee of the New York City Department of Youth Services, one of the agencies merged to form the Department of Youth and Community Development in 1996. Dr. Sonnenfeld received his Doctorate of Education from Columbia University’s Teachers College, writing his dissertation on “Changing Perspectives on Youth Services as Seen Through the Historical Development of the New York City Youth Board.” Over the course of his 45-year career, Dr. Sonnenfeld held multiple positions at the Department of Youth Services, including Director of Training. He has also served on the Board of Directors of numerous community based organizations in NYC."

In his own words, here are Kurt's reflections on his membership in the AAGW: I joined the American Association of Group Workers (AAGW) toward the end of my first year of group work studies at Pennsylvania School of Social Work in 1948. At that time the school and the field work placement made me feel to be very much a part of the professional field, so that I aspired very much to join the American Association of Group Workers. AAGW was then two years old, the successor organization to the National Association for the Study of Group Work, founded in 1936 and changed to American Association for the Study of Group Work in 1938. A helpful factor in bringing students closer to the professional association was that both national conferences of social workers and Jewish Center workers took place most frequently in nearby Atlantic City (before casinos). Group workers were then imbued with group work as a method but also as a field, the group work field, where it was thought to be practiced in "group work agencies," i.e. community centers, settlement houses, Y's. after-school and recreational settings. Later the street was added as a setting in working with street gangs, but that was also in the hope of eventually moving the groups, after becoming more socialized, to the mainstream community centers.

In 1955 NASW was formed with a Group Work Section (of which I later became secretary) and sections for Psychiatric Social Work, Medical Social Work, and School Social Work, which were seen as casework settings. There came a time when in those settings groups were formed as helping milieus for individuals in need of such service and professional group workers, who had the understanding and skills for such groups were engaged and thus starting to be recognized as having a role in settings other than leisure time. However, the work of such group workers was dubbed as "group work in special settings."

I chaired a four-person panel of group workers in such settings and the conclusion was that group work can be performed in any setting and conversely, no setting should be the exclusive domain of casework. I then was invited to give a paper at the Psychiatric Social Work Section on the function and contribution of group work, where group work was still a guest so to speak to the host of casework and I remember I asked "What is so special about a special setting?" And why designate it for group work, which can be used universally. It produced some thoughts in the discussion period. Parenthetically, when I worked as group work consultant at the Warwick School for Boys (where under the juvenile delinquency act boys were remanded from court to the institution), we talked with the staff about working with groups in orientation sessions, in the classrooms, in the work fields, in the cottages and other venues. Gisela Konopka wrote very fittingly on this.

However, then came the great debacle whereby the NASW board (composed primarily of traditional casework members) decided to drop group work as a section. Several of us argued at a stormy meeting that NASW was a membership organization and in such an organization the membership has the right to make such a decision. But to no avail. And then some time later, after deep feelings by group workers that a forum for group work issues is very much necessary, leadership was taken by my friend Catherine Papell (AASWG Board, Founding Life Member) and Beulah Rothman and several others to establish the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. There is great need, as it says, to advance group work, for both practitioners and students. May it grow!

Challenging Homophobia in Social Work Education

2008-01-02T15:33:00.000-05:00

A member of the group work community, Ady Ben-Israel, along with her colleague, Jill Kaufman, has created a DVD designed to challenge homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism in social work education. Ady joined the AASWG this past year and attended for the first time the annual AASWG Symposium held in New Jersey this past June. Ady is a graduate of the Hunter College School of Social Work where she studied group work. In addition to studying group work at Hunter, Ady has studied group therapy as developed by Louis Ormont at the Center for Group Studies. Ady currently works at the The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York City.

Of Bad Fit: Challenging the prevalence of homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism in social work education, Ady says, "we made Bad Fit in response to homophobic incidents taking place in social work settings, including NYC schools of social work". Ady and Jill decided to create a tool that could be used to help educators and field instructors spark conversation about these forms of oppression. Furthermore, Ady points out, "we also believe that through video we were able to bring the textured and lived experiences of our interviewees to our audience". Ady believes the DVD offers both agency workers and faculty "support in figuring out how to open up conversation about LGBTQ issues in social work". Finally, Ady tells us she "hopes it will be used to make all social work settings more accessible to the full range of clients who are already utilizing the services".

For more information, please go the BAD FIT Website. Below you will find the trailer for BAD FIT. Please note it will be hard to view on dial up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Group Work Community Mourns the loss of Dr. Joan Parry

2007-12-10T10:28:00.000-05:00

Front Row: Adylin Rosenblatt, Sonia Abels, Jeanne Gill, Sandra Chalmers (Guest)
Middle Row: Joan Parry, Judith Schieberl, Virginia Chalmers, Gary McKay,
Back Row: Ruth Howell, Albert Schafer,Jeffrey Schieberl (Guest), Paul Abels

Reports from John Ramey, Jeanne Gill and Judith Schieberl (current President of the Southern California Chapter of the AASWG), members of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (an International Professional Organization), indicate that Dr. Joan Parry died yesterday, January 09, 2008. The photo above is of Dr. Parry at the recent Officer's Installation luncheon hosted by the South California chapter of the AASWG located in San Diego.

Dr. Parry had more than 30 years experience as a social work practitioner and teacher. She was Professor Emeritus from the San Jose State University College of Social Work. Dr. Parry was an active member of the AASWG, NASW (both in NY and California), and the Council on Social Work Education. In addition to numerous articles and book chapters, Dr. Parry authored the books, Social Work Practice with the Terminally Ill and A Cross-cultural look at death, dying and religion.

She taught at the Hunter College School of Social Work from 1980 to 1984 and then at the San Jose State University College of Social Work from 1985 to 1993.

Dr. Parry made several contributions to the AASWG, most notably joining with Jeanne Gill in organizing the South California chapter of the Association. According to Jeanne Gill and Judith Schieberl, "Joan Parry and Jeanne Gill organized the first meeting of the Southern California chapter of the AASWG which was held on August 18, 1993 at the Fish Market, Del Mar, CA. A total of 13 group workers attended. Besides the two founders, the following eleven people attended: Sonia Abels, Paul Abels, Nancy Deutsch, Lynda Gaynor, Ruth Howell, Margaret Ishikawa, Wesley Ishikawa, Yvonne Platt, Susan Rice, Mary Gwynne Schmidt and Lisa Tange. On October 5, 1993, the newly elected board was announced: President, Joan Parry, Vice President, Paul Abels, Treasurer, Jeanne Gill, Secretary, Yvonne Platt. Members-at-large were Rosemarie Gonsalves (student), Kenneth Chau, Mary Gwynne Schmidt, Betty Reichert and Lisa Tange".

Condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Parry.

Some of you may wish to read Joan Parry's Obituary published in the San Diego Union Tribune, here.

Epidimiology of Substance Use Disorders

2007-11-13T21:27:00.000-05:00

The primary source of epidemiological information about substance use in the United States comes from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Department of Health and Human Services, 2002). The survey includes data gathered from interviews of 68,126 subjects. The sample was divided into thirds: adolescents aged 12-17; young adults aged 18-25; and adults aged 26 or older. Due to significant changes as compared to the previous survey, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, SAMHSA determined that the 2002 findings can not be compared to previous findings (Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
When current drug use was looked at by age, the rate of use was highest amongst young adults (20.2%). Among adults aged 26 or older, 5.8% reported use. Amongst adolescents, 11.6% were currently using at the time of the survey.
The most commonly used drugs reported were marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens and heroin. The study suggests that approximately, 14.6 million people had used marijuana; two million had used cocaine; one million two hundred had used hallucinogens; and 166,000 had used heroin. With regard to alcohol use, the survey indicated that as much as 120 million people drink alcohol. Fifty four million are thought engage in binge drinking and 15.9 million are thought to be heavy drinkers.
The study suggests that 22 million people in the United States would meet criteria for substance abuse or dependence. Most people entering treatment for substance use disorders meet criteria for dependence or abuse to more than one substance (Means et al, 1989; Miller, 1995).

Etiology of Substance Use Disorders

2007-11-13T21:26:00.000-05:00

Numerous efforts at explaining the etiology of substance use disorders have been made over time. Etiological causes have been attributed to the patient’s morality; biomedical predisposition; psychological vulnerabilities explained by both cognitive models and psychodynamic models; sociocultural models; and comprehensive biopsychosocial models (Miller and Hester, 1989; van Wormer and Davies, 2003). Leshner (1999), the now former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, notes the multifactorial process of developing addiction. The compulsion to use drugs, explains Leshner (1999) “results from a combination of factors, including in large part dramatic changes in brain function produced by prolonged drug use. This is why addiction is considered a brain disease-one with embedded behavioral and social aspects. Once addicted, it is impossible for most people to stop the spiraling addiction on their own…” (p.1314-1315).
The interaction of substances with brain chemistry may also explain how dependence develops for some (NIDA, 1999). For example, research indicates that cocaine use interacts with synaptic communication so as to cause a buildup and a release of dopamine in such a way as to produce a feeling of euphoria, a ‘rush’, or ‘high’ in the user (NIDA, 1999). As use continues there exists the potential to develop tolerance and consequently the need to use more of the substance and more frequently in order to experience the same level of euphoria leading to addiction characterized by a continued cycle of use and withdrawal (NIDA, 1999).
Etiological models that continue to view substance use disorders through the lens of morality or simply as a symptom of underlying psychopathology do not seem to hold much currency amongst professional helpers (NASW, 2003). Contemporary experts who do use psychodynamic theory to explain substance use disorders more typically incorporate the biomedical research findings in their conceptualization of the nature of addiction (Flores, 1997; Khantzian et al, 1999; Matano and Yalom, 1991). For example, Khantzian et al (1999) who view substance use disorders as ‘self-medication’ view psychological models as complementary to and not in competition with the biological evidence. Despite various causal theories it seems that there are, in fact, multiple pathways to developing substance use disorders and “in any particular individual, one or more of these variables may predominate” (Anderson, 1995, p.205).
Despite these different perspectives organizations such as National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA), and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) encourage treatment providers to view both the etiology of substance use and the treatment needs of the individual through a biopsychosocial framework (Leshner, 1999; Mee-Lee, 1995; NASW, 2003; NIDA, 2000; SAMHSA, 2005; van Wormer and Davies, 2003). While etiological theories have implications for the way that treatment is conceptualized, most treatment programs in the United States, as much as 90%, regard abstinence as the most appropriate treatment goal (Burke and Clapp, 1997; Flores, 1997; Miller, 1995).

The Disease Model
The American Disease Model of alcoholism has its roots in the explanation of alcoholism offered by Alcoholics Anonymous (Miller and Hester, 1989). The primary hypothesis is that alcoholism is a progressive condition and that alcoholics are “incapable of drinking in moderation” (Miller and Hester, 1989, p.5). The disease has been likened to an allergy and is viewed as having its roots in a combination of physical, psychological and spiritual causes (Alcoholics’ Anonymous, 1976). Miller and Hester (1989) observe that this viewpoint is not well utilized outside of the United States.
An outgrowth of this perspective is one that views recovery as a life-long process and posits the attainment of abstinence is simply the beginning of the recovery process (Abbott, 2000). This conceptualization of both alcohol and other drug use disorders has informed abstinence based treatment approaches, such as the Minnesota Model (Miller, 1995; Miller and Hester, 1989) and been incorporated in psychodynamically oriented practice approaches (Khantzian et al, 1999; Flores, 1997; Matano and Yalom, 1991). The American Medical Association (AMA) has considered both alcoholism and drug dependence as diseases since 1956 and 1987 respectively (Blume, 2002; Miller and Hester, 1989).

Biological Models
Biological models underscore the perspective that addiction is a brain disease (Leshner, 1999). This perspective considers unique biological and genetic factors that contribute to the development of substance use disorders (Finn, 1999; Vanyukov, 1999). In contrast with the American Disease Model, this perspective also considers the addictive properties of the substance itself (Miller and Hester, 1989). Miller and Hester (1989) indicate that the interventions associated with biological perspectives include both pharmacological and psychosocial interventions.

Social Learning Theory
Social learning focuses on the interaction between the individual and the environment in shaping patterns of substance use (Miller and Hester, 1989). Drawing from principles articulated by Bandura, the social learning perspective regards “addictions as acquired behaviors with multiple biopsychosocial determinants” (Piper and Joyce, 2002, p.175). Within this framework, increasing self-efficacy, one’s perceived sense of competency to effectively cope with a situation, is thought to be a central activity of treatment interventions (Rawson and Obert, 2002). Cognitive-behavioral interventions that flow from this perspective include skills training such as coping skills training and relapse-prevention in either an individual or group setting (Piper and Joyce, 2002).

Self Medication Hypothesis
The self medication hypothesis primarily developed by Khantzian posits that people with substance use disorders use substances as a result of ego deficits and vulnerabilities of the self (Albanese and Khantzian, 2002; Golden et al, 1994; Khantzian et al, 1990, 1999; Levy and Khantzian, 1999; Murphy and Khantzian, 1995). According to this theory, people use substances to medicate painful affect and to cope with environmental stress (Murphy and Khantzian, 1995). Vulnerabilities of the self include struggles with self-esteem; self care deficits; and poor affect regulation (Khantzian et al, 1990, 1999). The failure to use adaptive coping mechanisms leads to chronic use of the favored substance (Murphy and Khantzian, 1995). Levy and Khantzian (1999) suggest that the self medication hypothesis also explains the role of substance use in people who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The number of people with co-occurring PTSD and SUDs resonates with this hypothesis. As Najavits et al (1997) indicate, up to 34% of people in treatment have a diagnosis of PTSD; for women that rate ranges between 30% and 59%.
The implication of the self medication hypothesis is that group therapy is regarded as the treatment of choice, due to the unique capacity for the group to become a supportive holding environment and to restore healing, affiliative bonds (Golden et al, 1994).

Attachment Theory
Attachment theory has been used to expand the understanding of the etiology and impact of substance use disorders, as well as the rationale for employing group treatment (Flores, 1997, 2001, 2002; SAMHSA, 2005). Flores (2001) suggests that people with SUDs have a “fragile capacity for attachment” (p.64). That factor combined with the euphoria experienced by substance use leads to an “attachment to chemicals” that “serves both as an obstacle to and as a substitute for interpersonal relationships” (Flores, 2001, p.64). Building upon the work of Bowlby, Flores (1997) indicates that attachment is thought of as a primary motivational force with both psychological and biological determinants. The “primary biological function is to secure assistance for survival” (Flores, 2001, p.65).
Flores (2001) indicates that an implication of this perspective is that group therapy is the preferred treatment of choice for people with SUDs because of the potential to provide a real experience of interpersonal relating, not just insight about attachment difficulties. Group therapy underscores the reality that the “essence of being human is social, not individual” (Flores, 2001, p.68). From this vantage point, gaining independence is not a suitable goal of treatment, but rather the goals should include deepening the capacity for and satisfaction from attachment and interdependence (Flores, 2001).

Sociocultural Models
Sociocultural models expand upon other theories that identify the biological and psychological contributions to the development of SUDs (Heath, 1999; Miller and Hester, 1989). The attention to culture considers the beliefs and attitudes about “how, what, where, when, with whom, and for what purposes one should or should not use drugs” (Heath, 1999, p.175). An extension of this framework is a perspective that calls attention to the role of oppression based upon prejudice related to sexual orientation, gender, and race and/or ethnicity (Millan and Elia, 1997; Niesen, 1997). Heath (1999) suggests that the primary implication of this perspective is that prevention and treatment strategies need to consider the unique sociocultural factors of the given population.

Biopsychosocial Model
The biopsychosocial model views both the etiology and consequences of substance use disorders holistically and considers biological, psychological and social components (Mee-Lee, 1995; van Wormer and Davies, 2003). With regard to etiology, van Wormer and Davies (2003) indicate that the biological components include genetic vulnerabilities; psychological components include “thinking” that leads to substance use; and the social factors include environmental factors such as peer pressure (p. 12).
Mee-Lee (1995) suggests that it is crucial to understand the etiology, expression and treatment of substance use disorders as a “biopsychosocial illness” (p.119). This framework facilitates the integration of the diverse research findings; “necessitates multidimensional assessment”; and fosters individualized treatment (Mee-Lee, 1995, p.119).

Humanistic Values

2007-11-13T21:20:00.000-05:00

Consonant with the social group work tradition, a mutual aid based group work approach draws upon democratic and humanistic values (Coyle, 1937; Getzel, 1978; Gitterman, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Konopka, 1978; Northen, 2004; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Trecker, 1948; Tropp, 1976). Northen and Kurland (2001) identify the value system informing group work practice with “the ultimate value of social work” which they suggest is “that human beings have opportunities to realize their potential for living in ways that are both personally satisfying and socially desirable” (p.15). The perspective espoused by several social work group work experts is that people are responsible for one another and that mutual interdependence is preferable to individualism (Falck, 1989; Getzel, 1978; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004).
Humanism is “built on particular values that cast people in society as responsible for and to one another” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p.13). Democratic norms of group participation promote cooperation and “fluid distribution of position, power and resources” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p. 14). These values guide practice, inform worker role and use of self, and the understanding of membership in a social work group.
Humanistic values are manifested in the social work group when the worker and members demonstrate caring, cooperation, mutual aid, inclusivity, and respect for differences, according to Glassman and Kates (1990). Glassman and Kates (1990) underscore the role of humanistic values as they inform social work practice with groups and highlight the perspective that people have inherent worth; have a right to belong; have a right to be heard; and have a right to question and challenge the professionals with which they work.

Substance Use Disorders

2007-11-07T21:24:00.000-05:00

Substance use disorders comprise both substance dependence and substance abuse of over nine classes of substances, including: alcohol, amphetamine and amphetamine –like drugs, cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, opioids, phencyclidine (PCP), and sedatives (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Schottenfeld, 1994). The DSM-IV also considers caffeine and nicotine amongst the substances leading to substance use disorders, although caffeine is not thought to lead to either abuse or dependence while nicotine is believed to lead to dependence but not abuse (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Schottenfeld, 1994). The substances identified above are typically classified in one of two general categories: central nervous system depressants, such as alcohol and sedatives; and stimulants, including cocaine and amphetamine (Schottenfeld, 1994).
Substance dependence is the maladaptive use of the aforementioned substances that lead to “clinically significant impairment or distress” and is manifested by at least three of the following symptoms that occur in a twelve month period: tolerance; withdrawal; use of increased amounts per episode or for longer periods of time than intended; unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; significant amounts of time are spent in procuring, using, or recovering from use; a reduction in engagement with other social, occupational and recreational activities; substance use continues despite the awareness of physical and psychological problems (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p.197). As Schuckit (1994) explains: “substance dependence…is a condition in which the use of alcohol or other drugs has become such a central part of an individual’s life that he or she is willing to give up important activities in order to use the substance or resume substance intake” (p.4). The diagnosis of substance abuse requires that one of the following criteria is met: failure to fulfill role obligations, legal problems, interpersonal problems, and physically hazardous use without evidence of tolerance or physical dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Miller, 1995). Miller (1995) has suggested that for the person seeking treatment the distinction between dependence and abuse is not clinically significant.
Substance use disorders have been alternately referred to in the literature by other appellations including the following: “substance abuse” (NASW, 2003); “substance misuse disorder” (Abbott, 2003); “chemical dependency” (Washington and Moxley, 2003); and “addiction” (Flores, 1997). The use of the appellation “addiction” has also been applied to conceptualizations of compulsive sexual behavior; problematic gambling; and eating disorders (van Wormer and Davies, 2003). The concept of “addiction” may have application to a wider range of phenomena than the concept of substance use disorders; that aside there is conceptual resonance amongst the various aforementioned appellations (van Wormer& Davies, 2003).

Strengthening Group Work Education

2007-11-07T16:14:00.000-05:00

The Council on Social Work Education and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups partnered in 1995 to develop publications designed to address the educational gaps in the group work education of social workers with a publication series entitled Strengthening Group Work Education (Shulman, 1998). These two organizations agreed to three joint publications that will address the group work content for a semester long course, field instruction, and a generalist course (Shulman, 1998). In this entry we discuss the first volume, Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups authored by Roselle Kurland and Bob Salmon (an AASWG Member, pictured below).

This volume provides the group work instructor with a framework for presenting the salient educational content for a semester long group work class. A major goal of the teaching approach described is to facilitate students’ appreciation of what is uniquely group work “…especially, the essential power of mutual aid” (Kurland and Salmon, 1998, p.147). Foundational material includes a discussion on the evolution of group work and a suggestion for launching the course. The balance of the material is organized with regard to the phases of helping in group work with attention to pre-group planning; beginnings; middles; and endings. Additional topics covered include dealing with conflict; the use of program and activity; and problem-solving. Finally appendixed material includes a sampling of assignments and an extensive bibliography.

To contextualize the importance of this publication series we discuss in this entry the salient issues contributing to and resultant from the erosion of group work education on class room instruction and practice. In a future entry Carol Cohen (AASWG Board Member) and Julianne Wayne (an AASWG Member) will address these issues as they relate to Field Instruction.

The Erosion of Group Work Content in Social Work Education
The erosion of group work educational content in social work education in the United States has been long lamented. These concerns are often traced to the shift in the Council on Social Work Educations' educational policy proposed in 1969 which called for a shift from method specific education to a generalist foundation. As anticipatory discussions about this occurred in the profession, early warnings were made regarding the planned shift to “the teaching of a single method in social work” (Smalley, 1961, p.32). In 1961 Smalley cautioned that despite similarities in methods there were significant differences between helping individuals and groups. She argued that the result of a generalist approach to the “preparation of social workers would be to cripple the helping potential of workers engaged with individuals or with groups” (Smalley, 1961, p.33). In 1968 prior to the CSWE's shift in educational policy, at the 95th Annual Forum National Conference on Social Welfare in California Tropp shared his observation about the state of group work: “throughout social work today, groups are found adrift, at sea, with very little sense of direction, weak motivation or engaging in games of cooperative talk…to accommodate the worker, but signifying very little” (1977, p.78). The concerns identified about both group work education and practice will be addressed further in this entry.

There has been a steady decline in the number of social work schools in the United States offering group work concentrations since the 1960s. In 1963 seventy six percent of MSW programs offered a group work concentration; in 1981 the percentage dropped to 22%; and in 1992 only 7% of MSW programs offered a group work concentration (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). As a result practice, classroom instruction and field instruction have been affected. According to research conducted by Birnbaum (pictured, AASWG Life-time Board Member) and Auerbach in 1991 only 19% of schools require that students take a single group work specific course, leaving most students to obtain their knowledge from the generalist foundation courses (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). Survey research of faculty teaching generalist practice courses, however, indicates that meaningful group work concepts are not being taught sufficiently (Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000).

The Price of Neglect

This erosion has resulted in group work practice that bears little resemblance to the professional standards for effective practice, as evidenced by research conducted by Steinberg (pictured, AASWG Board Member, Treasurer) in 1992. The approach to practice that results from insufficient group work education has been pejoratively dubbed 'casework in a group' to denote the application of individually oriented casework skills in a group setting (Kurland & Salmon, 1992).

Reason for Hope
While the concern has most typically been traced to the Council on Social Work Education’s policy shift in 1969 (Northen and Kurland, 2001), the crisis in group work may have had its roots in the merger in 1955 of the AAGW with six other organizations to form the NASW, according to Andrews (2001).The concern has not gone unacknowledged by the Council on Social Work Education and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. In 1995 the two organizations partnered to develop publications designed to address these educational gaps with a publication series entitled Strengthening Group Work Education (Shulman, 1998).

To purchase Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups, click here.

To purchase Group Work Education in the Field, click here.

Tell us if you knew about these resources; if you have used them; what do you think about them? Weigh in by posting a comment here or on the list-serve. We want to know what you think?

References:
Forthcoming

~~~~Andrew Cicchetti

Further Validation of the Boston Model

2007-11-07T16:12:00.000-05:00

Dr. Susan Ciardiello (An AASWG Member) presents in this entry the abstract from her recently completed dissertation. Susan plans to publish the salient findings in an article in the near future. If you are interested in her study, feel free to contact Susan by email at sue23@optonline.net.

Although group work is widely used in the field of social work, there has been little empirical attention paid to the theoretical concept of group development. Thus there is a need for a better understanding of group development in social group work. This study examines the applicability of the Boston model for the stages of group development from the social worker’s perspective. The Boston model is a prominent model of group development in social work. This study is a quantitative study that used an internet survey to question members from the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups about the developmental pathway of their groups. The factors that influence the development of closed-ended groups such as gender and oppression status of group members were investigated. The data were analyzed by the use of chi-square and logistical regression (Weinbach & Grinnell, 2001). The findings suggest that certain groups were more likely to develop along the lines of the Boston model. These groups included those who were considered by the group workers surveyed to be predominantly oppressed and of low income, as well as groups predominantly non-white and of mixed ethnicity. Future studies should consider expanding the study population to include other groups of social workers.

~~~~Susan Ciardiello

Katrina Two Years Later

2007-08-30T10:33:00.000-04:00

Brave New Films has produced another powerful documentary, this time about the U.S. government's inadequate response to those affected by Hurricane Katrina. Watch the video and sign the petition at When the Saints go marching in.org.

Take a Stand: Against the War in Iraq

2007-08-29T08:16:00.000-04:00

Read more about the Take a Stand actions that occurred yesterday (8/28/07), here and here.

September is Addiction Recovery Awareness Month in the U.S.

2007-08-28T09:30:00.000-04:00

National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in the United States
(September 1 - 31)

Recovery Month is an annual observance that takes place during the month of September.

The Recovery Month observance highlights the societal benefits of substance abuse treatment, lauds the contributions of treatment providers and promotes the message that recovery from substance abuse in all its forms is possible. The observance also encourages citizens to take action to help expand and improve the availability of effective substance abuse treatment for those in need. Each year a new theme, or emphasis, is selected for the observance. This year's theme is "Saving Lives, Saving Dollars."

Please visit SAMHSA's Recovery Month Web site for more information: www.recoverymonth.gov.

Mutual Aid in Social Work Groups

2007-08-27T08:56:00.000-04:00

This is from Wikipedia's entry on Social Work with Groups: "Mutual aid as group work technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on mutual aid's resonance with humanistic values (Glassman, 2002) and the following propositions: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006).

Mutual aid is often erroneously understood as simply the exchange of support. Mutual aid is better conceptualized as multidimensional with at least 10 types of processes or activities that occur amongst and between members, including: sharing data, the dialectic process, discussion of taboo topics, the all in the same boat phenomenon, developing a universal perspective, mutual support, mutual demand (including confrontation), rehearsal of new skills, individual problem solving, and the strengths in numbers phenomenon (Gitterman, 2004; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004)." Mutual aid transactions that occur amongst and between members stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes and yield therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits for the members (Breton, 1990;Northen & Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 2006).

Mutual aid based group work draws upon the strengths possessed by the group's membership. A social worker invested in potentiating the group's capacity for mutual aid views the group as an enterprise in mutual aid; helps group members identify common ground; views her role as a mediator of the individual/group connection; helps the group understand the benefit of mutual aid; helps the group work through conflict rather than avoiding it; and supports the group in identifying and removing obstacles to mutual aid (Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006). A social worker invested in being the expert, having control over the group process, and engaging in casework in the group setting is likely to truncate the emergence and power of mutual aid (Kurland & Salmon, 1992; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). In structured groups wherein the worker is called to share her expertise, in order to qualify as social work with groups the worker seeks to integrate opportunties for mutual aid (Middleman & Wood, 1990). When the small group engages in an exchange of mutual aid not only are individual members strengthened but so is the group as a whole (Reissman, 1965).

Mutual aid based problem solving has been posed as an approach that considers the needs of the individual and the group simultaneously (Kurland & Salmon, 1992). Drawing upon the problem solving process proposed by progressive educator John Dewey, Kurland and Salmon (1992) have presented an eight step model for mutual aid based problem solving:1) an individual member raises a problem or issue of concern; 2) the problem is clearly identified by the individual and the group; 3) the problem is explored as the group elicits more information, listens attentively, responds empathically, and communicates understanding; 4) the worker asks group members to recount situations similar or relevant to the concern under current discussion; 5) the group generates possible solutions to the individual's problems upon consideration of the experiences shared by other group members; 6) the worker and the group members help the individual decide on a course of action and think through an implementation plan; 7) the worker asks all the group members what they have gained from the discussion; and 8) in a future session the worker or other group members follow up with the individual about their concern (p.9).

The social work with groups body of literature is replete with texts, articles and edited collections articulating the theory and practice of mutual aid based group work. For example, Schwartz (1961) suggested that the small group be envisioned as a mutual aid system. Regan (1992) has proposed an approach to mutual aid based group role plays for class room learning. Gitterman (1989) has highlighted mutual aid in support groups. Glassman and Kates (1990) have articulated the manner in which humanistic values are operationalized through mutual aid transactions. Shulman (1979, 2006) has built upon the model proposed by Schwartz and articulated a conceptualization of mutual aid typically associated with the Mutual Aid Model of group work. Steinberg (1997, 2004)has articulated an approach to cultivating mutual aid in group work. And the list goes on and on. For more reccommended reading check out the reading list at the Wikipedia entry on social work with groups. Not only am I still adding to the bibliography, but you could too when you have a moment to spare. Just click on the edit button.

Andy Malekoff Publishes His Second Book of Poetry: Groan Up!

2007-08-24T12:29:00.000-04:00

Andrew Malekoff, author of Group Work with Adolescents (Guilford Press) has written his second book of poetry: Groan Up: From Newark to Nebraska, According to Malekoff, “This 170 page volume of poetry is divided into four parts: the city (Newark, NJ), the suburbs (Maplewood, NJ), the campus (Rutgers: New Brunswick, NJ) and the country (Grand Island, Nebraska). These represent places that I grew up and lived in until my early twenties. Groan Up is a free-associative poetical memoir that is strong on themes of family, neighborhood, lost childhood innocence, teenage angst, and the search for identity. Groan Up is not for everybody, but it is for anybody who wishes to take an odd journey filled with interesting characters, strange detours and black humor.”

Dave Marcus, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and author David Marcus (What it Takes to Pull Me Through: Why Teenagers Get in Trouble and How Four of Them Got Out - Houghton Mifflin) says of Groan Up: “Andrew Malekoff has a way of taking us on a long, memorable Journey with just a few words. The sparse writing in ‘Groan Up’ is remarkable because the carefully-chosen details ring true – a reader often gets a tingle, an ‘I’ve-been-there’ sense. What a pleasure to read an anti-memoir memoir – a series of telling moments and scenes that allow us the luxury of making conclusions.”

The book can be purchased at Xlibris.com for about 20 bucks!

Andy has offered readers a preview of the poetry found in Groan Up!

when
i was
in the
second
grade
i was sent
to the princi-pal(?)s office
4 poking
a kid with
a pencil.

3 strange
groan-ups
confronted
me at
the meeting.

there were
2
women
and
1 man
with
a beard.

they sat next to one another
hiding the bottom halves
of their bodies behind
a folding table.

i
think that
the
man with
the
beard was
trying
2 im-press
the wo-men;

he
was real
loud
and X-pressive;

he
seemed 2-B
im-pressed
with himself
but
all i could
re-member
after the
meeting
was the food
in-between
his yellow teeth
and
the crumbs
in his beard.

i
imagined
that
he was a
jack-o-lantern
with
no candle
in-side
his skull.

at
the end of
the
meeting he
patted
my head;

i
imagined that
this
was his
secret
way of
getting
the
jack-o-lantern
to
light-up;

but
it
didn’t
work.

The Group Work Community Mourns the Loss of Al Alissi

2007-08-23T19:42:00.001-04:00

Al Alissi, professor emeritus of the University of Connecticut died on Tuesday near his vacation home in Cape Cod. Al was a social group work scholar and historian who has made significant contributions through group work education, publication, advocacy and direct practice. Some of you may be interested in reading the tribute written by Alex Gitterman when Al was awarded the International Honoree award by the Association of the Advancement of Social Work with Groups here. For more information about the tragic accident read the story by Susan Milton and to read more about Al Alissi follow the link to an article by Ken Byron at Courant.com. and his obituary here.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings about Al's death, his life and contributions to social work by posting a comment in the comment box.

The Phases of Helping in Group Work

2007-08-18T09:49:00.000-04:00

Phases of Helping
The concept of the phases of helping indicates there is a preferred sequence of worker activity so as to help the group become a mutual aid system and achieve group purpose (Gitterman, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schwartz, 1961, 1976, 1977). The phases occur over the course of the group’s life cycle and include: preparation, beginning, work and ending phases (Schwartz, 1961; Gitterman, 2004). This framework has relevance for conceptualizing the sequencing of worker activity in each group session as well (Birnbaum and Cicchetti, 2000; Birnbaum, Mason and Cicchetti, 2002; Shalinsky, 1983; Shulman, 2005b).

The Preparation Phase
The preparation phase attends to ‘tuning in’, pre-group planning, and work with the prospective members (Gitterman, 2004; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006). Tuning-in helps the worker anticipate members’ needs and feelings and develop preliminary empathy (Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999, 2006). The worker also tunes-in to one’s own feelings, attitudes and thoughts about the ensuing group encounter. A framework for pre-group planning proposes that the worker consider such interrelated factors as group purpose, composition, structure, size, content, and the environmental context of the group (Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Group workers, in addition to preparing the new group member, need to work with other staff members to gain sanction for their group and to facilitate referrals (Doel, 2006; Shulman, 1999, 2005b). Member outreach and preparation provides an opportunity to identify the goodness of fit between the group purpose and the prospective member’s needs and address feelings of ambivalence or reluctance about attending the group (Shulman, 1999, 2005b).

The Beginning Phase
The beginning phase has as its central assignment a collaborative approach to developing an initial contract for work (Henry, 1992; Schwartz, 1961, 1971a; Shulman, 1999, 2006). According to Schwartz (1971), “The contract, openly reflecting both stakes, provides a frame of reference for the work that follows, and for understanding when the work is in process, when it is being evaded, and when it is finished” (p.8) The work of the beginning stage is understood as group building. Phillips (1957) explains the role of the worker in group building indicating that the worker should focus her attention at “understanding and using the worker’s activity in a process that enables each group member to find and take part in the whole, in relationship with other members” (p.142).
Several developmental frameworks postulate that member ambivalence about both the work and connecting with one another is normative (Bennis and Shepherd, 1956; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schiller, 1995; Shulman, 2006). Shulman (2006) incorporated ideas from Bion’s group-as-a-whole approach, in particular his observation that members approach emotionally threatening material with a ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ response further explicating the understanding of ambivalence. In response to this the worker engages in purposeful group building so as to cultivate a climate of safety and trust which in turn contributes to establishing a culture for work (Schiller, 1995; Shulman, 2006).

The Work Phase
In the work phase the group’s energy is directed to “the main body of problems and to the major tasks of the helping process” (Schwartz, 1977, p.1335). The worker considers when to intervene with the group as a whole, the interactional process and the individual member (Shulman, 1999, 2006; Toseland and Rivas, 2005). Central worker tasks include the maintenance of the group as a mutual aid system and actualizing group purpose (Schwartz, 1977). The tasks of this phase according to Schwartz (1977) include: the search for common ground; detecting and challenging obstacles to task accomplishment; worker contribution of ideas, facts and values; the sharing of the worker’s vision, that is “his feelings about the process, and his faith in the clients’ strengths and capacities”; and defining the boundaries of the “situation in which the small group is set” (Schwartz, 1977, p. 1335).
How the work is conceptualized is in large part informed by the population, the nature of the group and the purpose for which the group was formed (Shulman, 2006). For example, the nature of the therapeutic work for people with Substance USe Disorders is conceptualized as a developmental process with early treatment tasks focused on establishing abstinence, deepening motivation and eroding denial (Flores, 1997; SAMHSA, 2005a). The nature of treatment for people with SUDS will be discussed further at the group work and substance use disorders page provided at the link above in the resource menu.

The Ending Phase
The ending phase presents the group members the opportunity to consolidate gains, explore feelings and thoughts about endings, review and evaluate their work and make plans for the future (Gitterman, 2004; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999). Variations on endings occur when the worker leaves the group and when members leave a group that is ongoing (Shulman, 1999).

Upcoming Group Work and Related Conferences!

2007-08-08T14:03:00.000-04:00

I have been getting a few email requests lately asking if I know of any upcoming group work conferences. These are the conferences and workshops that I know about. If you would like to add to the resource pool, please forward the information and website link to me and I will post the information.
The 13th Annual Groupwork Symposium, entitled "Out of the Shadows: Putting Groupwork on the Map" is being held at St. John's College in York, England on Monday September 3rd and Tuesday September 4th. For more information go to the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups website by clicking on the above link in the resource menu. Also, planning for the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups'30th Annual Symposium which will be held on June 19th through June 22, 2008 in Cologne, Germany is well underway. The call for papers has just recently been issued. For more information go the AASWG website as well. Check back for more information about the conference as time goes bye. Also, if you are interested please note the link in the resource menu for photos from the 2007 Symposium just recently held in Jersey City.
Some of you may also be interested in the group work conference being held by the Association for Specialists in Group Work entitled Effectiveness and Diversity in Groups being held on February 21 through February 24, 2008 in St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. For more information go to the Association for Specialists in Group Work website at www.asgw.org.
Also, please note that Lawrence Shulman will be presenting on Advanced Skills of Clinical Social Work Supervision in the New York City area hosted by the NASW-NYS on November 14, 2007 and December 4, 2007. For more info go to www.naswnys.org.

Heterosexist Policies Hurt Bi-National Same Sex Couples

2007-08-05T16:01:00.002-04:00

Congratulations to Susan Ciardiello!!!!

2007-07-25T10:52:00.001-04:00

Congratulations to soon to be Dr. Susan Ciardiello for successfully defending her dissertation yesterday. Susan has been pursuing a Ph.D. in Social Welfare at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work in New York City. Her dissertation focused on worker perceptions of the stages of group development and sought to examine the applicability of the Boston Model to work with various populations. Susan's dissertation committee was chaired by Dr. Susan Mason and the group work expert on the defense committee was Dr. Alex Gitterman. Let us all stand and cheer Susan for her outstanding accomplishment, hard work and contribution to the field of social work. Yeah, Dr. Sue!!

Racism Report: Learn More About the Jena 6

2007-07-20T09:35:00.000-04:00

The Social Group Work Foundation

2007-07-18T10:39:00.000-04:00

The Social Group Work Foundation was formed in 1997 as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to preserving and promoting traditional social group work principles and practices. According to Al Alissi, who along with Bob Green and Julie Newman, head the organization, the mission is to preserve the legacy of traditional social group work as it occurred in group work agencies. Al Alissi, former group work professor at the University of Connecticut was instructed by Grace Coyle and used the first Social Group Work text written by Harleigh Trecker in 1948 while a student at Case Western. His expertise in understanding the history of social group work is enhanced because it is his lived experience. The mission of the organization includes informing and educating the public about the benefits of participating in group associations; disseminating information to human service providers, including social workers; and supporting the work of other agencies with similar missions. Currently Al is supervising a group work project at the Hartford Girls and Boys Club. Also, he is working on the second paper of the organization's series that will focus on the sayings and adages often used by group workers in the past. The first of an occasional series of papers entitled, The Social Group Work Tradition: Toward Social Justice in a Free Society, is available for download at http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/sw_op/.

Announcing the Mutual Aid Based Group Work.com Bookstore powered by Amazon.com

2007-07-15T21:25:00.000-04:00

Readers, I want to announce the opening of The Mutual Aid Based Group Work.com Bookstore powered by Amazon.com. You can find the link to the bookstore in the Resource Menu above. The Bookstore features key contemporary books about social group work and social work with groups. Additionally you will find categories on group therapy; substance abuse treatment; and social work. There is even a little bit of Brazilian music and Harry Potter thrown in for a little fun. Why the bookstore? Why not? The Amazon.com associates program pays the affialiate bookstore a small percentage of all books sold. Plus 100% of the profit will be donated to the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. If there are books or other items you would like to recommend for the bookstore please let me know. I would hope you consider making your group work and social work book purchases through the Mutual Aid Based Group Work.com Bookstore. Anticipating your support, THANK YOU!

Learn More About Substance Use Disorders!

2007-07-14T11:33:00.000-04:00

When You Need A Laugh!

2007-07-14T10:53:00.000-04:00

Check out www.bentobjects.blogspot.com

The Social Welfare History Archives is Fascinating...

2007-07-07T10:06:00.000-04:00

Check out what can be found at The Social Welfare History Archives at University of Minnessota! Follow the link to the Group Work Resources Section, here.

Alliance of Cambridge Settlement Houses records
American Association of Group Workers (AAGW) Archival Papers
Eduard Lindeman papers, 1932-1945
Henry Street Settlement records
Max Casper papers
National Association of Social Workers, Oral History Project Records
The Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups Archive
The Gertrude Wilson Papers
The Harleigh Trecker Papers
The Hartley House Records
The Norma Lang Papers
The Ruby Pernell Papers
Toby Berman-Rossi papers

Check out the new Group Work Resources Section!

2007-07-06T09:40:00.000-04:00

To order the above resources, go here.

So this isn't about group work, but it's important!

2007-07-05T08:33:00.000-04:00

Great Resource for Social Work Education

2007-07-04T08:49:00.000-04:00

Photos from the 2007 Symposium

2007-07-01T22:40:00.000-04:00

My Experience of The 2007 Symposium

2007-07-01T09:04:00.000-04:00

I attended the Symposium on Friday and Saturday and want to share my experience of it with you. However, I want you to share your experience too, with me and every one else who might read this post. If we begin doing that this site can become more interactive. Keep on reading and I will tell how you can do that, if you want, in case you don't already know. First off, major kudos to the Planning Committee, wouldn't you agree. Let's all stand and applaud Susannne Palombo, Kathy Sweeney, Maureen Hagan, & Greg Tully! We all know you worked very hard to make this happen and you deserve our gratitude!. I did not attend the first day and missed the Opening Banquet Plenary by Dominique Steinberg & Bob Salmon. I would love it if someone could tell us about it on this page ( I will tell you how soon). I arrived Friday in time to hear Andy Malekoff's presentation entitled "Gatekeepers, Gatecrashers, and Gateways in Group Work with Kids". Thematic in the work he described is the dual focus given to supporting individual growth and efforts at creating social justice. For me it feels like Andy is supporting the kids he works with to not only "find their voice" but to use it as well, to as he said "make waves". What I like about his presentations always is not that he is smart, or a talented group worker, or even that he is a good story teller. For me it is that I can feel the love and respect he has for the kids he works with and the power of the group. It made me buy his book even though I don't work with kids. (You can order his book too from the link on this page that will take you to several vendors). I only went to two workshops Friday ( I played hookie with Susan Ciardiello in the afternoon). The first workshop was a presentation by Alison Johnson. Alison presented an approach to divorce called the Colloborative Model, which she helped to develop. She discussed the application of social group work principles to this model as it seeks to help people divorce in a way that preserves civility and allows for a reconfiguration of the family system rather than its destruction. For more information about this model contact Alison at AJCounseling@Bellsouth.net. Next I went to Greg Tully's presentation on the application of group work principles and techniques to helping groups of corporate employees. Apparently these groups are sometimes referred to as the "touchy-feely" groups. Sounds like a book title to me. Before I played hookie I facilitated one of the working lunch meetings at the Town Hall. The Town Hall addressed issues related to strengthening AASWG internally and promoting the association and its work externally. We all agreed, "CHANGE THE WEBSITE", which apparently will be happening shortly. But there were probably more than 50 suggestions that came from the meeting's discussion. Then Sue and I played hookie. That's one thing I love about the Symposium, there is always a chance to catch up with friends. She, by the way, is in the home-stretch on pursuing her Ph.D. Yeah , Sue! Saturday I went to a presentation by Mike Chovanec which I think reflects cutting edge work. He is beginning to look at how the Prochaska & Declemente Stage of Change Model can be integrated with group work in work with men who have battered or been abusive (if you are interested read his chapter in the Handbook of Social Work with Groups). He was paired with Carl Mazza and Byron Coleman ( Carl has presented at Symposia several times before, but If I am not mistaken, Byron was a first time AASWG presenter-hope he comes back!) who spoke about their work with groups of men who are transitioning out of prison (If you are interested in their work or their agencies they can be contacted by email Carl is at Carl.mazza@lehman.cuny.edu and Byron at byroncoleman@hotmail.com).
While at lunch on Saturday I made a new friend, Ady, who is working at the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual & Transgender Center in NYC. Ady Ben-Israel along with a colleague, Jill Kaufman, made this groundbreaking DVD called "Bad Fit: challenging the prevalence of homophobia, transphobia & heterosexism in social work education". The DVD can be used in both the classroom and in field instruction (and in the classroom for field instructors in SIFI courses, if you ask me). I asked Ady to send me a trailer that I can embed right on this page, but for now you can follow the link below to badfit.org and see the trailer and order the DVD. Great work Ady and Jill!
Welcome to BAD FIT!
Ok, I am coming to a close here. Thank you for bearing with such a long post. I will post some photos later on this week so check back if you want to see them. But for now I want to remind you that you could post your experience here too and we could make this site a bit more interactive. Below this post is a link that says "Comments"; click on that and a pop-up box will appear; in the box there will be three options to select from asking you to choose an identity; select which ever one works for you, but you do not need a password if you select the "other" or "anonymous" category; then write what you want to write; when you are finished click the preview your comments if you want to review or publish your comments option. If you want to read what people are saying come back to the post that you are interested in and click on the comments link and you can read what people are saying. Thanks and bye for now.

The Results of The First Poll Are In

2007-06-25T09:24:00.000-04:00

The first poll, which ran approximately two weeks, asked the following question, "Do you plan to attend the AASWG Symposium in Jersey City"? Here are the results.

Answers Votes Percent
1. Yes. Definitely. 20 63%
2. Not sure. Maybe. 0 0%
3. No. Not this year.12 38%

Total Votes: 32

Our next poll asks you to indicate if you receive supervision for your group work practice. Please take the time to vote; check back to see the results.
Thank you for taking the time to participate.

Mutual Aid Processes: Part Two-Specific Processes

2007-06-24T20:54:00.000-04:00

This post builds upon the previous post by explicating specific mutual aid processes that potentially occur amongst and between group members. The mutual aid processes identified and discussed here primarily stem from the discussions on mutual aid provided by Shulman (2006) and Northen & Kurland (2001). You may want to read the preceding post prior to this one if you haven't done so already or look to the right column for the Group Work Theory Links to read all theoretical posts sequentially.

Sharing Data or Acquiring Needed Knowledge

Sharing data can be understood as occurring when members share useful, relevant information (Hartford, 1976; Parad et al, 1976; Shulman, 1999, 2005a; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). Northen and Kurland (2001) add that “the group is a safe place to acquire needed knowledge” (p.26). This process makes use of members’ experiential knowledge, wisdom and beliefs (Parad et al, 1976; Shulman, 2005a). For example, in crisis debriefing groups members might be encouraged to share coping strategies (Parad et al, 1976). In recovery oriented groups members might share strategies for protecting sobriety.

The Dialectic Process

The dialectic process occurs when members express differing perspectives about the topic under discussion (Shulman, 1999, 2005a; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). Members might propose opposing or seemingly opposing points of view which can be discussed and debated. The dialectic process that unfolds allows for discussion of the pros and cons of the multiple perspectives regarding any topic. This group activity has resonance with the principles of motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). Wasserman and Danforth (1988) suggest “it is critical that these differences be revealed in the group, where people can think about them and discuss the pros and cons, and where their own affirmations and doubts about a topic can be challenged” (p.139).

Discussing Taboo Topics

Discussing ‘taboo’ topics refers to the discussion of subject matter that is typically regarded as more revealing than polite conversation (Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999, 2005a; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). The range of taboo topics might include direct communication about the worker’s use of their authority to issues of sexuality, drug use, and experiences that have induced feelings of shame or guilt (Shulman, 2005a; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). This process has been likened to the TF, catharsis (Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 2005a; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988).

The All in the Same Boat Phenomenon or Universality

The ‘all in the same boat phenomenon’ is resonant with the TF, universality (Anderson, 1985; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999, 2005a; Yalom, 1995). Northen and Kurland (2001) posit that “the realization that similar feelings and difficulties are common among the members lessens the sense of being unique and alone” (p.25). This discovery is thought to enhance both self esteem and mutual esteem (Northen and Kurland, 2001).

Developing a Universal Perspective

Developing a universal perspective is described as a special type of the ‘all in the same boat phenomenon’ (Shulman, 1992, 1999, 2005a). The process has been likened to ‘consciousness-raising’ (Shulman, 1992, 1999, 2005a). This process suggests that as members identify commonalities they will begin to note the role of societal forces that contribute to a more textured understanding of their problem, rather than simply viewing their difficulties as the result of personal deficits (Breton, 2004; Shulman, 1992, 1999, 2005a). This process is presented as especially resonant with the needs of people who are vulnerable and/or oppressed (Shulman, 1992, 1999, 2005a). In addition to consciousness-raising, this process is conceptually similar to the concept of ‘critical consciousness’ as described by Freire (1970).

Mutual Support

Mutual support is identified with both the supportive, accepting culture of the group as well as member to member supportive interaction (Gitterman, 1989; Hartford, 1976; Northen, 1951; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 1999, 2005a; Tropp, 1976; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). The effective communication of support requires both sympathy and empathy and is expressed verbally, non-verbally and through physical gestures like hugging (Shulman, 2005; Steinberg, 2004). This process is viewed as buffering against distress caused by personal difficulties (Caplan, 1974; Gottlieb, 1983; Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Gottlieb, 1983; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004). As Shulman (1986) has pointed out, “carrying a burden is often easier if others express their understanding” (p.55). Shulman’s (1986) belief is supported by social support research that has demonstrated the buffering and protective effects associated with social support (Gottlieb, 1983). For example, research on the effects of support groups for breast cancer survivors and cardiac arrest patients reveal significant mental and physical health benefits including fewer hospitalizations, longer life span and improved psychosocial functioning (Gottlieb, 1983).
The manner in which support is helpful is explained by Northen and Kurland (2001) who note that the supportive, accepting climate “reduces anxiety and facilitates self expression and willingness to try out new ideas and behaviors” (p.25). Resonant with the TF ‘altruism’, Shulman (1986) opined that “the giving of empathic support is often helpful to the one who gives as the one who receives” (p.55).

Mutual Demand, Group Control and Reality Testing

Mutual demand, in addition to support, is believed to be required for growth and change (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 1999, 2005a). The skillful leader will cultivate a group climate that has an appropriate balance of challenge and support (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005). The challenging climate leads to an internalized sense of accountability to the group and yields member to member challenge and confrontation (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004). Northen and Kurland (2001) suggest the expectations of the group, that is the group control, “serves as a means toward the goal of appropriate self control” (p.26). This contributes to strengthening a ‘culture for work’ (Shulman, 1999). Members, as opposed to the worker, are believed to be both more adept at identifying behavior or attitudes that warrant confrontation (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Shulman, 1999). Likewise, it is posited that members are more likely to make better use of the confrontation emanating from a peer as opposed to a worker (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Shulman, 1999). Northen and Kurland (2001) in discussing their concept of reality testing note that ‘feedback from peers is often more candid and explicit than are responses offered by the worker” (p.26).

Mutual Support and Demand, Quality of Relationship

The combined effect of mutual support and mutual demand, Shulman (1986) suggested, is similar to the following items in Yalom’s ‘interpersonal learning’ construct: “learning how I come across to others”; “other members honestly telling me what they think of me”; “feeling more trustful of groups and other people”; and “learning about the way I related to the other group members” (Yalom, 1975, p. 79 as referenced in Shulman, 1986, p.142). Northen and Kurland (2001) echo this perspective by noting that the when the quality of relationships contains a “blend of support and challenge”…it provides…”a corrective emotional experience” (p.25).

Individual Problem Solving

Individual problem solving has long been recognized as an important activity in social work groups (Hartford, 1976; Schwartz, 1961; Northen, 1976; Somers, 1976; Shulman, 1999, 2005a; Steinberg, 2004). The social group work approach to problem solving typically draws upon the framework proposed by Dewey (1910) and invites full participation of the group members (Kurland and Salmon, 1992). The belief amongst social group workers is that when one member helps another they are helping themselves (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988).
Shulman (1999) offers the example of a group member complaining about the ‘strained relationship between herself and her mother’ (p.309). As the problem is explored and reframed other members began to “make associations to a similar concern” (p.310). As solutions were generated by the group other members could see that these solutions could apply to their concern as well. Shulman (1999) observes that “this is one of the important ways in which giving help in a mutual aid group is a form of self-help” (p.310). Shulman (1999) explains the point by noting that “it is always easier to see the problem in someone else’s relationships than in your own” (p. 310).

Rehearsal and Skill Acquisition

Rehearsal can be understood as the intentional practicing of new skills and ideas in the context of a supportive forum, the group (Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). Northen and Kurland (2001) note that the group provides the opportunity for acquisition of new skills as well. Steinberg (2004) suggests that rehearsal can be operationalized overtly as in the use of a role play but can also be understood as an aspect of simply participating in the group. Steinberg (2004) proposes that the group can be “a place to freely experiment with new ways of being and doing” (p.118).

The Strength in Numbers Phenomenon

The strength in numbers phenomenon (Shulman, 1999, 2005a) has also been identified as ‘the strength in us’ (Breton, 2004), perhaps a harkening to the book of the same name about mutual aid-self help by Katz and Bender (1976). Shulman (1986) explained that members “often feel powerless to deal with large institutions and agencies, helping professionals (even the group leader), and apparently overwhelming tasks” (p.58). Consequently, “sometimes it is easier to do things as a group than it would be as an individual” (Shulman, 1999, p. 312). In my own group practice this phenemenon occurred when members accompanied one member to a 12 Step meeting who had been having difficulty returning to A.A.

The proceses offered by Northen and Kurland (2001) not explicitly identified in the preceding discussion include cohesiveness, altruism and development of hope, which can be understood in much the same way as explained Yalom's discussion of Therapeutic Factors. While written with regard to interactive group psychotherapy I suspect these processes occur in social work groups.

Cohesiveness

Cohesion exists in reciprocal relationship to other TFs in that it promotes their emergence and is strengthened by them (Crouch, Bloch, and Wanlass, 1994). Group cohesiveness is understood by Yalom as analogous to relationship in the dyadic therapeutic relationship and includes both the group experience of “esprit de corps” as well as the individual members’ “attraction to the group” (Yalom, 1995, p.48). Yalom (1995) proposes the following statements as indicative of group cohesion: “belonging to and being accepted by a group”; “continued close contact with other people”; “revealing embarrassing things about myself and still being accepted by the group”; “feeling alone no longer”; and “belonging to a group of people who understood and accepted me” (p. 74).

Altruism

Altruism operates when the group member offers “support, reassurance, suggestions, or comments to help other group members; shares similar problems with the purpose of helping other members; feels a sense of being needed and helpful; can forget self in favor of another group member; and recognizes the desire to do something for another group member” (Crouch, Bloch and Wanlass, 1994, p. 285). Yalom (1995) adds that discovering that you can be of help to another person has the potential to “boost self-esteem” (p.12). The category is described by Yalom (1995) as including the following statements: “helping others has given me more self-respect”; “putting others’ needs ahead of mine”; “forgetting myself and thinking of helping others”; “giving part of myself to others”; and “helping others and being important in their lives” (p. 74).

Instillation of Hope

Instillation of hope is “crucial in psychotherapy” according to Yalom (1995, p. 4). The instillation of hope occurs through group member action and interaction, as well as therapist intervention (Yalom, 1995). Crouch, Bloch and Wanlass (1994) suggest that “hope operates when the patient simply notes that improvement does occur” (p. 286). In Yalom’s survey instrument the instillation of hope is operationalized in the following statements: “seeing others getting better was inspiring to me”; “knowing others had solved problems similar to mine”; “seeing that group members improved encouraged me”; and “knowing that the group had helped others with problems like mine encouraged me” (Yalom, 1995, p.78).

Mutual Aid Processes: Part One-Introduction

2007-06-20T08:26:00.000-04:00

The concept of mutual aid in the worker-led social work group is understood as an exchange of help wherein the member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The concept is premised on the belief that members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to provide help to others in the group (Shulman, 2006). Additionally members have the capacity to share emotions and respond empathically and supportively to one another. Related to this is the belief that some types of mutual aid processes, for example, confrontation, are better received when it comes from peers rather than a worker (Shulman, 2006) and that helping others helps the helper, a concept referred to as the "helper-therapy principle" (Reissman, 1965) for which there is empirical support (Roberts et al, 1999). According to the findings of research conducted by Roberts et al (1999), providing help potentially leads to increased feelings of “competence, equality, social usefulness, independence, and social value” (p.843). Mutual aid activities that occur amongst and between group members are posited to stimulate affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes that as Northen and Kurland (2001) explain can be understood as “dynamic forces”, “therapeutic factors” and “change mechanisms” (p.24). Furthermore, Reissman (1965) writing about the helper-therapy principle but equally apropos of mutual aid processes notes the impact on the group as a whole: “not only are individual group members aided in the group, but the group as a whole may be greatly strengthened in manifold ways as it continually offers assistance to individual group members” (p.32).
From the field of social work, building upon the work of Schwartz (1961), Shulman (2006) since 1979 has presented an elaboration of mutual aid processes that is typically associated with the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups. Building upon the research of Bloch, Crouch and Reibstein; Rohrbaugh and Bertels; Yalom; Corsini and Rosenberg; and Shulman, Northen and Kurland (2001), also from the field of social work, presented “the dynamic forces of mutual aid” (p.26). Their discussion tethers mutual aid processes to the concepts "therapeutic factors" and "change mechanisms", terms commonly used to describe the helpful processes of group therapy.
Schwartz (1961, 1971, 1976, 1977) had proposed that the social work group engage in problem solving; employ authentic, affect- laden communication; accommodate expressions of difference and conflict; and discuss ‘taboo’ topics. Shulman (1979, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2006) advanced a conceptual framework of mutual aid processes comprised of the following 10 types of processes: sharing data; the dialectic process; entering taboo areas; the ‘all in the same boat’ phenomenon; developing a universal perspective; mutual support; mutual demand; individual problem solving; rehearsal; and the strength in numbers phenomenon. Northen and Kurland (2001) presented “the dynamic forces of mutual aid” (p.26). Their elaboration includes the following processes/dynamics: mutual support; cohesiveness; quality of relationships; universality; a sense of hope; altruism; acquisition of knowledge and skills; catharsis; reality testing; and group control (Northen and Kurland, 2001, p.25/26).
Members enter the social work group with intrapsychic obstacles to establishing mutual aid. This fact informs the role of worker, whose function it is to foster mutual aid and help the group identify and work through these obstacles. Conversely, the worker can truncate the emergence of mutual aid if he/she is not fully invested in harnessing the strengths of the members. One final thought to keep in mind as well is that the types of and degree of mutual aid processes that emerge are influenced by a variety of factors, including group type; purpose; stage of development; and needs and capacity of the members.
In conclusion, the role of mutual aid processes in the social work group is illuminated by Gitterman (2006), a contemporary expert on mutual aid based group work from the field of social work. Gitterman (2006) contends that “mutual aid is the major rationale for the provision of group services” (p.93). Gitterman (2006) elaborates on mutual aid in the social work group noting that, “as members become involved with one another, they develop helping relationships and become invested in each other and in participating in the group” (p.93). The mutual aid processes that unfold help group members “to experience their concerns and life issues as universal”, “to reduce isolation and stigma”, “to offer and receive help from each other”, and “to learn from each other’s views, suggestions and challenges” (Gitterman, 2006, p.93).

The AASWG Symposium in Jersey City Nears!

2007-06-17T22:24:00.001-04:00

Readers: This is a copy of an email from Susanne Palombo regarding the upcoming Symposium in Jersey City. Some of you may have seen the email already but for those of you who may not have seen it, here is the information. The link to the AASWG is on this pager under Group Work Resources and the link to the Full Program is under the Symposium Programs section. See you soon!

"Dear Symposium Attendees (or potential attendees)

Forgive us if you have already received this e-mail but we are not sure if the bulk e-mails went through. A reminder that the cost for AV equipment is very high and we are not able to absorb the cost at this time. Some people are bringing their own. If you are bringing AV equipment, please bring an extension cord. The hotel will not supply any. If you are willing to share your equipment with others, let us know.

With 10 days to go before we all meet in Jersey City, we are sending you this e-mail with some important reminders. First, the Final Program is now on line. Please go to aaswg.org to view it and find the day and time of your presentation. We are keeping our fingers crossed that there are no mistakes! So here are the reminders:

1. It is not too late to register if you have not already done so.

2. If you have not already signed up for the banquet and plan to attend and pay at the door, you must let us know. We are not able to add to the numbers on Thursday evening as the banquet numbers must be turned in three days ahead. Since we are running on a very tight budget, we cannot afford to pay for extra meals.

3. The Institutes are filling up quickly. Please reserve your space now in order to be assured of a place.

4. Don’t forget that tickets for the Broadway show, Color Purple, will be raffled off. Raffle tickets will be sold Thursday, Friday and Saturday morning. The winner will be announced at the end of the Saturday morning plenary so that they can make plans to go into the city on Saturday night!

5. Chair massages will be available at so plan to treat yourself!

6. Finally, we suggest that you use public transportation from the airport (Newark) to the hotel.

Here are the instructions:

Traveling from Newark Airport to the front door of the Hyatt Hotel

Take the monorail from the airport terminal to the Newark Airport Train Station. (It is on the outer perimeter of the airport)

At the Newark Airport Train Station, take the train to Penn Station Newark (not Penn Station New York). Penn Station Newark is the 1st stop after the airport. (It is less than 7 minutes so don’t fall asleep.

At Penn Station Newark get off and change to the New Jersey PATH train. Take the New Jersey PATH Red Line to Exchange Place. Be sure to get on the RED LINE. Exchange Place is the 4th stop (right after Grove Street) and leaves you at the hotel’s front door. A map of the Path line can be seen at http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/path/html/map.html if you would like to check the information out for yourself.

The fare for the train is between $6.50 and $7.75 depending on whether or not you are a senior citizen.

The PATH train is $1.50.

Trains run every 15 minutes. The PATH runs every 5-7 minutes. You can buy tickets from the vending machines or on the train. However, it is more expensive if you buy your ticket on the train.

You can call the hotel for the shuttle, however it is $55 for three and the price increases as more people are added.

We can’t wait to see you."

The Symposium Planning Team

June is Gay Pride Month!

2007-06-15T16:36:00.001-04:00

June is Gay Pride Month. In New York City we will celebrate with a variety of activities culminating in the annual Gay Pride Parade on Sunday June 24th. Group work with lesbian women and gay men is such an underdiscussed topic. Therefore I thought it might be useful to post some of my notes from a presentation I made with Shantih Clemans a while back for the New York City Chapter of the AASWG. I will include more of the presentation in future posts if people are interested and will include the references in case you want to do further reading. Happy Pride.

Homophobia and Heterosexism
What is homophobia and Heterosexism?
The psychoanalytic concept of homophobia was first introduced by Weinberg in 1972 and referred to the fear or dread of being in the physical proximity of a gay or lesbian person. A second meaning found in the concept of “internalized homophobia” refers to the gay or lesbian person’s internal sense of shame and self hatred.
Herek (1996) argues that homophobia is not a true phobia, that is those with anti-gay prejudice do not manifest the psychological or physiological reactions associated with phobia. He also points out that the concept refers to an individual experience as opposed to an ideological, systemic societal phenomenon. He suggests the concept be limited to Weinberg’s second meaning in describing the gay or lesbian person’s internalized sense of shame and self contempt.
Herek (1996) points out that heterosexism refers to the ideological system that views heterosexuality as not only normal, preferred, and legitimate but also seeks to ignore, stigmatize and shame any non-heterosexual form of sexual expression, identity or intimate relationship. Heterosexism can be likened to other institutionalized forms of oppression such as sexism and racism. There are both cultural and personal manifestations.
Cultural heterosexism manifests in the United States via policies regarding housing, employment, same sex relationships, parenthood, and military service that discriminate often without recourse. Policies discriminating against same sex relationships include the Federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, several states DOMA laws many of which were passed during the recent presidential election, as well as our immigration polices which pose an impediment to bi-national same sex relationships. Cultural heterosexism also manifests in our agencies and institutions in which we work when forms, activities and interview processes ignore non-heterosexual behaviors, identities and relationships.
Psychological heterosexism is the individual manifestation of cultural heterosexism. This is characterized by both contempt for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals as well as a more subtle discriminatory mind set that devalues the legitimacy of same sex relationships and either ignores or devalues the rights and needs of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Hatred sometimes manifests in acts of physical violence including murder. Hanson (1996) points out that lesbians and gay men are the most frequent victims of bias crime in the United States. A 1989 phone survey of 287 gay men and 113 lesbians indicated that 5% of the men and 10% of the women had been physically assaulted because they were perceived to be gay or lesbian. Such attacks may reawaken internalized homophobia and lead to self blame (Hanson, 1996). Also the victim may experience secondary victimization when reporting the incident to the police and/or in seeking medical or counseling services.

How does homophobia and heterosexism impact the young pre-gay/lesbian adolescent?
Socialization involves the internalization of the values, beliefs and attitudes of the developmental milieu including family of origin, peer group, educational institutions, religious systems, and society in general (Malyon, 1993). Heterosexist beliefs are both consciously and unconsciously internalized thus informing ego development. As a component of ego internalized homophobia erodes self esteem and interferes with identity formation and object relations (Cabaj, 2000; Herek; 1996; and Malyon, 1993). Some may develop harsh punitive superegos resulting in debilitating guilt and/or perfectionism.
The chief developmental adolescent task of the search for identity becomes thwarted by the competing need for parental love and peer group approval. The young pre-gay or lesbian adolescent is likely to receive approval via the adoption of a false “heterosexual” self. In order to maintain this false self the pre-gay or lesbian adolescent is likely to rely on denial and disassociative processes as defense mechanisms. For those children whose behavior is gender discordant they are likely be either shunned or humiliated by their peers resulting in profound damage to self esteem (Cabaj, 2000).
Some in order to mask their feelings of shame and defectiveness may become academic overachievers. Some may become depressed, isolated, lonely and guarded. Often the pre-gay or lesbian adolescent will fear being shunned or rejected if their true feelings and identity were found out (Cabaj, 2000).
Implications for Group Work
What implications are there then for group work?
There are several implications for both homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups as well. Regarding homogeneous groups Ball (1994) notes that homogeneous groups provide opportunities for ‘homosocialization’. Homosocialization in professionally facilitated groups offers a therapeutically corrective experience of non-sexual peer bonding potentially enhancing self esteem and ameliorating shame. Saulnier (1997) in describing her research about group work with lesbians reporting problematic drinking suggested that the women appreciated the experience of being in an all lesbian group. This experience promoted a heightened sense of psychological safety and lead to discussion of topics participants felt they would not have had in a mixed group that might have included men or heterosexual women. More psychodynamically oriented writers have noted that internalized homophobia manifests via the group process allowing for further exploration and treatment (Tunnell, 1994).
Heterogeneous groups are sometimes not only the only resource available but can offer potential benefits related to the group’s heterogeneity. Yalom (1975) noted that a precursor to effectiveness involved the group’s capacity to work through homophobia.
References
Anderson, C. (1985). Males as sexual assault victims: multiple levels of trauma. In J. Gonsoriek (ed.) A Guide to psychotherapy with gay and lesbian clients. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Appleby , G. (1998). Social Work Practice with Gay Men and Lesbians within Organizations. In G. Mallon (ed.) Foundations of Social Work Practice with Lesbians and Gay Persons. Binghamton, NY: The Harrington Park Press.

Ball, S. (1996). HIV negative gay men: individual and community social service needs. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(2), pp. 25-40.

Ball, S. (1994). A group model for gay and lesbian clients with chronic mental illness. Social Work, 39(1), pp.109-115.

Bickelhaupt, E. (1995). Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in Gay and Lesbian Persons: a review of incidence studies. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 2(1), pp.5-14.

Cabaj, R. and Stein, T. (1996). Introduction. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Cass, V. (1996). Sexual Orientation Identity formation: A Western Phenomenon. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Conlin, D. & Smith, J. (1985). Group Psychotherapy for gay men. In J. Gonsoriek (ed.) A Guide to psychotherapy with gay and lesbian clients. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Cornett, C. (1993). Dynamic Psychotherapy of Gay Men: a view from self psychology. In C. Cornett (ed.) Affirmative Dynamic Psychotherapy with Gay Men. New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Downey, J. & Freidman, R. (1996). The negative therapeutic reaction and self hatred in gay and lesbian patients. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Getzel, G. (1998). Group Work Practice with Gay Men and Lesbians. In G. Mallon (ed.) Foundations of Social Work Practice with Lesbians and Gay Persons. Binghamton, NY: The Harrington Park Press.

Gonzalez, F. and Espin, O. (1996). Latino Men, Latina Women and Homosexuality. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Hanson, B. (1996). The violence we face as lesbians and gay men: the landscape both outside and inside our communities. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(2), pp. 95-114.

Herek, G. (1996). Heterosexism and Homophobia. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Hooker, E. (1996). Epilogue. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Isay, R. (1996). Becoming gay. New York: Pantheon Books.

Jones, B. & Hill, M. (1996). African American Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Lipton, B. (1996). Opening doors: responding to the mental health needs of gay and bisexual college students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(2), pp. 7-24.

Malyon, A. (1985). Psychotherapeutic Implications of Internalized Homophobia in Gay men. In J. Gonsoriek (ed.) A Guide to psychotherapy with gay and lesbian clients. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Nakajima, G., Chan, Y. and Lee, K. (1996). Mental Health Issues for Gay and Lesbian Asian Americans. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Niesen, J. (1997). An inpatient psychoeducational group model for gay men and lesbians with alcohol and drug use problems. . Journal of Chemical Dependency Treatment, 7(1/2), 37-52.

Odets, W. (1994). Survivor Guilt in Seronegative Gay Men. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Saulnier, C. (1997). Alcohol Problems and Marginalization: Social Group Work with Lesbians, Social Work with Groups, 20(3), 37-59.

Stein, T. (1996). A critique of approaches to changing sexual orientation. In R. Cabaj &T. Stein (eds.) Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Sullivan, N. (2004). Conflict as an expression of Difference: a desirable group dynamic in anti-oppression social work practice. In C. Carson, A. Fritz, E. Lewis, J. Ramey, and D. Suguichi (eds.) Growth and Development Through Group Work. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press Inc.

Tunnell, G. (1994). Special Issues in Group Psychotherapy for gay men with AIDS. In S. Cadwell, R. Burnham, and M. Forstein (eds.) Therapists on the Front line: psychotherapy with gay men in the age of AIDS. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Van Voorhis, R. & Wagner, M. (2001). Coverage of gay and lesbian subject matter in social work journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), pp. 147-160.

Favela Rising: Watch One Man Make a Difference

2007-06-15T09:38:00.000-04:00

The Mutual Aid Model of Group Work (Updated)

2007-06-13T17:31:00.001-04:00

The Mutual Aid Model of group work practice (Gitterman, 2004) has its roots in the practice theory proposed by William Schwartz (1961) which was introduced in the article, “The Social Worker in the Group”. Schwartz (1961) envisioned the group as an “enterprise in mutual aid, an alliance of individuals who need each other in varying degrees, to work on certain common problems” (p.266). Schwartz elaborated: “the fact is that this is a helping system in which clients need each other as well as the worker. This need to use each other, to create not one but many helping relationships, is a vital ingredient of the group process and constitutes a need over and above the specific tasks for which the group was formed” (1961, p. 266).
Schwartz (1976) regarded this approach as resonant with the demands of a variety of group types including, natural and formed; therapeutic and task; open and closed; and voluntary and mandatory. Both the Mutual Aid Model and the concept of mutual aid have endured and continue to inform social work practice with groups (Gitterman, 2004).
Schwartz (1961) premised his approach to practice on ideas expressed by Kropotkin (1903), Dewey (1910), Mead (1934) and Simmel (1955) that illuminated the nature of the relationship between the individual and society. The model was premised on the proposition that there exists a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship between the individual and society, a dynamic encapsulated in the small group (Schwartz, 1961). This type of mutualistic symbiosis was expressed by Schwartz (1971) as the “need to use each other” to work on resolving common problems (p.7).
Schwartz (1977) contrasted this model with approaches that failed to collaboratively work with groups. More importantly he rejected the medical model wherein the worker “decides what is wrong”, “labels it” and prescribes the treatment (Schwartz, 1977, p.1331). This was not to say that the worker avoids using prior professionally obtained knowledge but rather the worker uses this knowledge to deepen “preliminary empathy” (Schwartz, 1977, p.1334). A similar perspective was advanced by Tropp (1977b) who suggested that the worker should employ a phenomenological approach and attend to “current group and individual behavior rather than on prior personality diagnosis” (p.96).
A concept common amongst social group work approaches has been the ‘two-client’ perspective which views both the individual and the group as the two clients engaged with the worker (Trecker, 1948; Schwartz, 1977; Steinberg, 2004). For Schwartz (1977) this dualism was resolved by observing that they both are inextricably linked, engaged in reciprocal relationship. Both the individual and the group “needs the other for its own life and growth” argued Schwartz (1961, p. 153). From this stance flowed Schwartz’ beliefs about the mediating role of the worker, a role he argued belonged to the social work profession at large (Schwarz, 1961, 1971, 1977).
Schwartz (1961) viewed the group as an organic whole and identified “the group organism as a complex of moving, interdependent human beings” (p.18). Expanding on this perspective he identified four main features of the group: the group is a “collective, in which people face and interact with each other; people need each other; the purpose of the group is oriented by needing to work on common problems or tasks; and the work of the group is embedded in the function of the agency” (Schwartz, 1976, p. 185).
Schwartz (1971) proposed that the tasks of the worker and the members of the group are interdependent but different, an idea he expressed as “parallel process” (Schwartz, 1971, p.10). The members of the group are charged with both helping themselves and each other (Schwartz, 1971, 1976). The nature of the help could be understood as deriving from the exchange of members’ personal views and experience as well as the expression of feeling (Schwartz, 1977).

Evolution of the Mutual Aid Model

The model proposed by Schwartz followed a historical, theoretical path along the mainstream of social group work (Papell and Rothman, 1980; Tropp, 1977a). According to Tropp (1977a) “the mainstream was more deeply explored by William Schwartz, who further elaborated the concepts of group function and worker involvement, while adding the dimensions of the mutual aid phenomenon and the contractual relation between worker and group” (p.1322).
Schwartz (1961, 1964) initially thought of this approach as an organic systems model (as he viewed the group as an organic whole) later to refer to it as the mediating model and then the interactionist model (Schwartz, 1977). The model initially proposed by Schwartz has been further developed most notably by Lawrence Shulman and Alex Gitterman, who have since referred to this model as the Mutual Aid Model (Gitterman, 2004, 2005; Shulman, 1979, 1992, 1999, 2005b; and Steinberg, 1997, 2004).
The change in nomenclature reflects shifting focus on the various facets of the model with attention to its philosophical underpinnings (reciprocal); to the focus on worker function and activity (mediating); to the emphasis on member interaction (interactional); and with the current appellation, the Mutual Aid Model, to the quality and nature of the interaction of the members (Gitterman, 2004; Middleman and Wood, 1990a; and Steinberg, 1997). Recently Shulman (2005a) introduced the alternate appellation “Mutual Aid Group Treatment” (MAGT) to contrast worker lead treatment groups with mutual aid self help groups (MASH).
Subsequent to presentation of this practice theory, Schwartz elaborated on this model in the following articles and/or chapters” “Toward a Strategy of Group Work Practice (1961); “Small Group Science and Group Work Practice” (1964); “Analysis of Papers Presented on Working Definitions of Group Work Practice” (1964); “On The Use of Groups In Social Work Practice” (1971a); “Social Group Work: The Interactionist Approach (1977); and “Between Client and System: The Mediating Function” (1976). Finally, an unfinished text believed to be written from the period of 1968 to 1972, entitled “Social Work with Groups: The Search for a Method”, was published in a collection of Schwartz’ work in 1994 by Toby Berman-Rossi called “Social Work: The Collected Writings of William Schwartz”.
Noting the importance of this model, Papell and Rothman (1966) identified the model’s primary contribution to social group work practice theory: “its outstanding contribution” is as “the construct of a mutual aid system with professional interventions” (p. 130). For Papell and Rothman, the conceptual strength of the model lay in the observation that “what had been vaguely referred to in the past as ‘helping members help themselves’ has acquired a higher level of theoretical statement. It is now possible to consider the attributes and culture of a specialized system and to transmit the skills necessary to support its realization. This is probably the single most important contribution that group work method can make to the social work profession at large (italics mine, 1966, p. 130). Sharpening Papell and Rothman’s observation, Schwartz (1976) would note that the worker invested in cultivating mutual aid had “the additional task of not only helping people help themselves, but to help each other as well” (p. 194).
Mutual aid would come to be regarded as a hallowed concept in the practice of social group work (Tropp, 1977b). Hartford (1976) noted that the cultivation of mutual aid had become central to generic group work practice. Echoing this observation, Papell and Rothman (1980) noted that “the conception of the group as a mutual aid system had become a universal one in all of group work practice” and had become a feature of the ‘mainstream’ of practice (1980, p. 9).

Renewing Your Membership Has Never Been Easier!

2007-06-12T20:56:00.000-04:00

I just discovered that the AASWG website allows one to join or renew their membership on-line. It took less than 3 minutes. Who knew?! In the U.S. membership is $70.00 for full-time workers and $35.00 for students and retirees. For Canadians the membership fees are 50.00 and 25.00 respectively. Why do I join? I like being a member of a community that supports and promotes group work. I like the fellowship and opportunities for connection that emerge from participation in Chapter events and the annual Symposium when I can make it. Even when I can't make the events I want to know that I am supporting the work of this vital organization! Furthermore, the discounts on journals and the annual symposium are actually worth more than the price of membership. Its actually like getting something for nothing. Now there are no excuses. Join or renew your membership. If you look to the right of this website you will see that I provided a link to the AASWG membership link. A couple of clicks and your a member of AASWG. It couldn't be easier.

The One Campaign

2007-06-11T09:42:00.001-04:00

This is where the 2008 Symposium will be held.

2007-06-09T18:47:00.000-04:00

The 2008 sym-posium is being held in Cologne Germany from June 19-22.

What do you think about the new blog?

2007-06-08T12:27:00.000-04:00

I plan to post weekly with topics related to mutual aid based group work theory and practice. I see myself providing orienting information and then hopefully coming up with some stimulating questions for conversation. I envision guest bloggers submitting posts and would love to conduct and post interviews with social work with groups luminaries, as well as post reports from the field, chapter news, job postings, course syllabi, photos, polls, so if interested, please volunteer. At this point please feel free to comment, make suggestions, and/or volunteer to help out in some way. Bye for now.

Are the people in your groups patients, clients, or members?

2007-06-08T12:16:00.000-04:00

While the language is not consistent in the social work literature, in general the understanding is that the group worker employing a mutual aid based approach works with ‘members’ of groups rather than ‘clients’ as well as the group itself (Konopka, 1978; Trecker, 1948; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004). The concept of membership versus client is not insignificant nor simply a matter of semantics (Falck, 1989). As Konopka (1978) pointed out, “the concept of member instead of client indicates a democratization of the helping process, an acceptance of the legitimacy of indigenous leadership and the concept of mutual aid as a goal” (p.128). Members are viewed as active, “self-realizing” and “energy producing” rather than passive recipients of treatment (Schwartz, 1977, p.1331). In this approach the strengths of members are recognized (Schwartz, 1977).
A mutual aid based approach to group work has implications for understanding not only the role of the member but the nature of the ideal relationship between and amongst members as well. Members are viewed as interdependent (Northen and Kurland, 2001) with responsibilities to and for one another (Falck, 1989; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Falck (1989) makes the point that implicit in the notion of member is the “principle of connectedness” (p.24), that we are all a part of a larger whole. Falck (1989) observes that “nobody exists aside from others; no social interaction is possible without others” (p.24/25).
This perspective within the context of the group experience subjugates the notion of self-determination to that of social self-determination (Falck, 1989). Illustrating the point, Falck (1989) notes that there is a difference in asking “what do you want to talk about?” than “what shall we discuss?” (p. 29). This framework has implications for the role of the worker whose responsibility includes mediating the reciprocal relationship to be found between the group and member and the members with one another.

What do you think? Are the people in your group patients, clients or members? What do the people in your group think about themselves? What does it mean to be a patient? A client? A member? Are there pitfalls in only thinking of the people in your groups as members? What is it like when all of your colleagues refer to these people as patients and you think of them as members? Please share your perspective.

The Purpose of This Blog

2007-06-08T12:07:00.000-04:00

The purpose of this blog is to provide the reader with information about mutual aid based group work practice and to serve as a forum for those of us in the group work community to share information, ideas, resources and challenges. As the blog administrator I see myself as providing orienting information; inviting conversation and an exchange of information and resources; and am welcoming of colloboration. Please participate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas about improving this forum.

The Evolution of Social Group Work: With focus on mutual aid (Updated)

2007-06-08T11:40:00.001-04:00

The Mutual Aid Model and the role of mutual aid in group work can be best understood within a historical context. While mutual aid is an aspect of group approaches developed in other professional disciplines, the concept of mutual aid as a feature of group work has been given primacy within social group work/social work with groups’ approaches. While Schwartz introduced the appellation ‘mutual aid’ to the social work profession, and through the Mutual Aid Model, brought greater clarity about how to stimulate mutual aid processes, the idea of mutual aid has been thematic throughout the evolution of social group work/social work with groups. While all social work with groups models do not place equal primacy on establishing the group as a mutual aid system, in general, where appropriate, in many models the worker is encouraged to cultivate mutual aid (AASWG, 2006; Garvin et al, 2004; Gitterman, 2006; Middleman and Wood, 1990a).
So as to better understand the rationale for stimulating mutual aid in group work, the history and evolution of social group work/social work with groups is addressed below. Within this discussion the various theoretical, philosophical, sociocultural and political forces that influenced the development of group work theories, in particular the Mutual Aid Model, will be identified.

The Early Years: Seminal Contributions

Social group work and group psychotherapy have primarily developed along parallel paths. Where the roots of contemporary group psychotherapy are often traced to the group education classes of tuberculosis patients conducted by Joseph Pratt in 1906, the exact birth of social group work can not be easily identified (Kaiser, 1958; Schleidlinger, 2000; Wilson, 1976). Social group work approaches are rooted in the group activities of various social agencies that arose in the latter part of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Social upheaval and new found demands as a result of post Civil War industrialization, migration and immigration left many with numerous concrete and psychosocial needs (Brown, 1991; Kaiser, 1958; Middleman, 1968; Reid, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Wilson, 1976). Some of these needs were met through group work endeavors found in settlement houses, religious and charity organizations (Middleman, 1968; Wilson, 1976). Additionally group work could be found in the progressive education movement (Dewey, 1910), the play and recreation movement (Boyd, 1935), informal education, camping and youth service organizations invested in ‘character building’ (Alissi, 1980; Schwartz, 1977; Williamson, 1929; Wilson, 1976).
As Clara Kaiser (1958) has indicated there have been numerous philosophical and theoretical influences on the development of social group work. Chief amongst these influences are the ethics of Judeo-Christian religions; the settlement house movement’s charitable and humanitarian efforts; theories eminent in progressive education, especially those of Dewey (1910); sociological theories about the nature of the relationship between man and society, i.e. Mead (1934); the democratic ethic articulated by early social philosophers; the psychoanalytic theories of Rank and Freud; the practice wisdom, theory building, educational and research efforts of early social group workers (Alissi, 1980; Kaiser, 1958; Wilson, 1976). Early theoretical, research and practice efforts of Grace Coyle (1930, 1935, 1937, 1947, 1948), Wilber Newstetter (1935), and Neva Boyd (1935) paved the way for the advancement and development of social group work.
Grace Coyle presented an early theoretical framework for social group work articulating the need for a democratic value base (Coyle, 1935), identifying the role of the worker as a group builder (Coyle, 1937) and noting the benefits of ‘esprit de corps’ or group morale (Coyle, 1930). As the editor of several small group research compendiums Hare (1976) would later point out, “many of her insights about group process were ahead of her time” (p.388).
Social group work debuted at the National Conference for Social Work in 1935. At this conference, Newstetter (1935) introduced the concept of social group work and identified group work as a field, process and set of techniques. He described group work as an “educational process” concerned with “the development and social adjustment of an individual through voluntary group association” and “the use of this association as a means of furthering other socially desirable ends” (p.291). As with other early perspectives Newstetter (1935) noted that the worker’s task involved cultivating social interaction, “a ‘we’ feeling…a bond” (p.292). Noting that all work with groups is not group work, Newstetter (1935) advanced the perspective that the worker needed to cultivate the “group work process” (p.296).

The Mid-Thirties to the 1950s: a period of growth and Expansion

The period of time between the 1930s and the 1950s was one of growth and expansion for social group work (Alissi, 1980; Wilson, 1976). The economic despair of and varied psychosocial needs resultant of the Great Depression paved the way for greater affiliation between the social work profession and the field of group work (Alissi, 1980; Konopka, 1983; Wilson, 1976). The psychological needs of returning war veterans who served in World War II resulted in the more frequent application of social group work in psychiatric treatment (Konopka, 1983). It was during this period of time that the field of social group work would appear at the National Conference for Social Work; establish academic courses and research institutions; form a professional organization, The American Association of Social Work with Groups (AAGW); and establish the journal, The Group. The first textbooks would appear as well, written by Harleigh Trecker (1948) and Wilson and Ryland (1949).
The 1950s would usher in even greater affiliation of group work with the profession of social work (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The merger of the AAGW with six other organizations to form the National Association of Social Work (NASW) in 1955 solidified the identification and integration of social group work with the social work profession (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The impact of the merger was reflected in efforts at definitional shifts regarding group work. In 1956 the NASW formed a group work section which issued a new definition that contrasted in focus with that proposed by the AAGW. The new definition dismissed the idea of group work with normal growth and adjustment and instead saw group work as a “service to a group where the primary purpose is to help members improve social adjustment, and the secondary purpose is to help the group achieve objectives approved by society…the definition assumes that the members have adjustment problems” (Alissi, 1980, p. 24). Less than one fifth of the group work section agreed with this definition at the time (Alissi, 1980). The ensuing tensions regarding the defining parameters of social group work lead to a reconceptualization that included recognition that there existed different models to be used for different purposes (Hartford, 1964; Papell and Rothman, 1966).

Toward greater theoretical conceptualization
The attention given to the interaction between the function of the worker and the cultivation of group process would be of central focus in theory building efforts during this time period. Cohen (1944/1952) advanced the following perspective: “Group work, as we understand it, begins with a conscious effort to work the process. The group worker…stimulates and guides the group so that it will function in a democratic way rather than arbitrary way” (p.197). For Coyle (1944/1952) group work implied that “some leader is aware of the group inter-action and discerns social inter-actions of the group as well as the program activities which the group is doing (that is process and content)” (p.201).
The philosophical and operational conceptualization of both social group work and the role of the group worker were further addressed by the American Association of Group Workers. The draft of the association’s definition of group work in 1948 identified group work as “a method by which the group worker enables various types of groups to function in such a way that both group interaction and program activities contribute to the growth of the individual, and the achievement of desirable social goals” (originally mimeographed and printed in Sullivan, 1952, p.420).
Grace Coyle lead a committee charged with developing the “Definition of the Function of the Group Worker” which concluded that the group worker bears responsibility for promoting both group interaction and program activities that contribute both to individual growth and advances the achievement of socially desirable goals (originally mimeographed and published in Sullivan, 1952). A primary task of the worker was to influence the group process, which in large part included member to member interaction in service of achieving group goals. Wilson and Ryland (1949) promoted the following perspective about the role of the worker, “it is through the professional use of this relationship that the members and the group as a whole are helped to achieve their personal and corporate purposes. The success of the social group work method depends upon the worker’s wisdom and discretion in developing the interpersonal relationships within the group and with other groups” (p.85)
In 1956 the Council on Social Work Education undertook a three year study to examine the curriculum in the education of social workers (Murphy, 1959). This study included examination of group work curricula to identify the essential characteristics of social group work being taught to students (Murphy, 1959). The project included review of curricula of ten schools of social work and from this was derived “a set of descriptive propositions” regarding social group work (Murphy, 1959, p. 37).
The propositions reflected beliefs primarily about the nature of group interaction, the role of group process, and the tasks of the worker (Murphy, 1959). The following propositions were made by the curricula review committee: members bring to the group experiences and patterns of behavior “first learned in the primary family group”; “the development of group characteristics in a given group can be examined, understood, and evaluated”; group work is simultaneously concerned with both content and process; worker efforts at helping members function optimally in the group has the benefit of helping them function optimally in “other social situations”; the worker deals with “multiple interactions of group members”; problem solving in the group considers “multiple points of view”; the worker helps “members use relationships with others more constructively” (p.37-39).
With regard to theory building, a significant contribution to group work later reflected in Schwartz’ (1961) model was the concept of ‘engagement’ proposed by Phillips (1957). Phillips (1957) noted the interaction between the worker and group process and suggested that it was amongst the worker’s primary functions to engage the individual member with the group process, help the group identify and accept common goals, and enable the group to develop their within group relationships.
In sum, the history of social group work to this point reflected the following practice principles: allegiance to democratic principles; primacy was placed on the role of member to member interactions; members were viewed as possessing inherent strengths and competencies; and the function of the worker was viewed as “working” the process (Trecker, 1948) or “engaging” the group members (Phillips, 1957). In Schwartz’ (1959/1994) own review of the history of social group work while he appreciated the gains made he acknowledged what he felt was the lack of adequately developed practice theory. He noted that “a theory of method must be formalized, transmissible, and amenable to interpenetration to those in whose service it is pledged. Without a theoretical foundation for method, we have knowledge and cannot use it, or we have goals without a sense of how they can be reached” (Schwartz, 1959/1994, p.217-218).

The 1960s to the present: Further Development of Practice Theories

The 1960s and the 1970s saw the expansion of the social welfare state; the Vietnam War; the emergence of the war on poverty; the Women’s Rights Movement; the Black Power Movement; and the Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). The above social, intellectual and cultural factors influenced the social work profession including social group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). With such a wide range of social and therapeutic needs there seemed to be an even greater appreciation of group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Hartford, 1964; Somers, 1976).
Having expanded into differing practice settings, the purposes and goals of group work had been more broadly described at this juncture than in previous decades. While consensus would not be found in accepting any one theory of practice or approach, it is best said that social group work comprised differing approaches with differing goals. In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section would agree that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context. The facilitation of interpersonal relationships amongst members was regarded as a central work task (Hartford, 1964).
Group work scholars made great strides in developing practice theories. The work of Vinter and Schwartz and their respective associates would dominate the group work scene for much of this decade and the next (Galinsky and Schopler, 1974). In Vinter’s approach (1967) the treatment group is thought of as a small social system “whose influences can be planfully guided to modify client behavior” (p.4). In this approach the worker takes a central position in providing treatment, interventions are planned, group process is highly structured, and great emphasis is given to outcome evaluation and research (Vinter, 1967; Garvin, 1987; Galinsky and Schopler, 1974).
Schwartz (1961) proposed his vision of the small group as an enterprise in mutual aid. In what would become regarded as the ‘mainstream of social work practice with small groups’ (Lang, 1979) the cultivation of mutual aid would be viewed as a central worker task over and above the purpose for which the group was formed (Hartford, 1976; Papell and Rothman, 1980).
In 1965 Bernstein and colleagues introduced another social group work practice theory (Bernstein, 1978; Lowy, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). The centerpiece of the edited collection was a developmental stage model, known as the Boston Model, which presented a framework for understanding how groups navigate degrees of emotional closeness over time (Bernstein, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). In 1966 Papell and Rothman (1966) presented a typology of social group work that included the social goals model (in the tradition of Coyle), the remedial model (as developed by Vinter) and the reciprocal model (as articulated by Schwartz). In 1968 Middleman (1968) made a seminal contribution in articulating an approach to group work practice that utilized non-verbal activities. In 1976 Roberts and Northen presented a collection of ten group work practice theories (Roberts and Northen, 1976) further illustrating the diversity of approaches to group practice.
As theory building proliferated there was a simultaneous effort to distill the essential elements of social group work. In 1980 Papell and Rothman suggested the essential characteristics of the mainstream model were “common goals, mutual aid, and non-synthetic experiences” (1980, p.7). Also Middleman and Wood (1990a) identified the common characteristics of various approaches to social work with groups.

From Social Group Work to Social Work with Groups

In a 1990 discussion of ‘social work practice with groups’ that illuminated the relationship of ‘social group work’ to ‘social work with groups’, Middleman and Wood suggested that, “First of all, to qualify as social work with groups, worker attention must focus on helping members to become a system of mutual aid” (1990a, p. 10).
For Middleman and Wood (1990a) the evolution in conceptualization of practice from social group work to social work with groups recognized earlier tensions about the definitional scope of social group work which was not thought of as including group therapy. Earlier Tropp (1977b) had pointed out, “there are many kinds of social work with groups, of which one is social group work” (p.74). Social group work aims to “help people in the enhancement of their functioning...in consonance with the society around them”, according to Tropp (1977b, p. 74). Tropp (1977b) suggested that one difference between social group work and group therapy is that in group therapy “the individuals have similar goals but usually do not have a common goal” (p.14).
Middleman and Wood (1990a) acknowledged the continued expansion of the range of group services that social workers were providing, noting that “therapy can be the content of social work with groups” (italics mine, p. 10). According to Middleman and Wood (1990a) the four essential elements of social work with groups include: worker attention to helping the group develop as a mutual aid system, viewing the group process as a powerful force for individual change, cultivating group autonomy, and helping members experience their ‘groupness’ upon termination.
Within the framework proposed by Middleman and Wood mutual aid and group autonomy are posed as definitional parameters of social work with groups. At the same time, the view advanced by Middleman and Wood is not espoused by all social workers. For example, Garvin et al (2004) provide a less constraining definition of social work with groups noting they have a “broad view of this domain of social work” and view social work practice with groups as “encompassing any and all types of groups in which social workers participate” (p.1). With regard to the quality of interaction in the group, Garvin et al (2004) suggest that “whenever appropriate to the purpose of the group, this quality includes the principle of mutual aid, which sees members as helping one another” (italics mine, p.2).

Contemporary Group Work

Contemporary group work practice continues to be informed by the work of early pioneers and the vanguards of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups, the Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work Model is recognized as influential on contemporary group work practice (Rose, 2004). The approach suggested by Rose (1989, 2004) integrates cognitive and behavioral interventions with small group strategies. While primacy is not placed on establishing the group as a mutual aid system in quite the same way as with the Mutual Aid Model, Rose (2004) suggests the worker promote group discussion and member interaction. Furthermore, drawing upon Yalom’s Therapeutic Factor construct Rose (2004) points out the benefits of universality, altruism, and group cohesion as well as mutual reinforcement, factors which are conceptually resonant with mutual aid.
Contemporary social workers continue to build upon group work theory. For example, Schiller (1995) has proposed a model of practice that builds upon developmental stage theory and integrates Feminist theory. The Relational Model considers the developmental needs of women, places primacy on cultivating safety and views power and control issues as less important to the group’s growth as compared to other approaches (Schiller, 1995). Schiller (2002) suggests that this model has application to group work with oppressed and vulnerable populations as well. Another example of theory building can be seen in group approaches that integrate technology mediated communication (Meier, 2004).

Contemporary Challenges

The late seventies saw the reemergence of a professional journal, Social Work with Groups in 1978. Additionally, in 1978 social group workers formed a committee to host a symposium in honor of Grace Coyle which paved the way for an annual conference in subsequent years (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The conference planning committee was transformed into the membership driven organization, the Association for the Advancement for Social Work with Groups, now an international organization (AASWG, 2006).
Despite the proliferation of professional activity there has been deep lamentation for the state of both group work education and practice since the late 1960s onward (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Goodman, 2006; Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Tropp, 1977b; Steinberg, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2004; Strozier, 1997). While it has been observed that work with groups has been happening with great frequency, it is often not group work grounded in theory, the values of the profession, and/or evidence (Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992). The concern has been traced most prominently to the Council on Social Work Education’s policy shift leading to an approach to education that calls for a generalist foundation so as to promote integrative practice (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
The concern about practice was forcefully stated by Tropp in 1968 at the 95th Annual Forum National Conference on Social Welfare in California (Tropp, 1977b). Tropp (1977b) stated his worry: “throughout social work today, groups are found adrift, at sea, with very little sense of direction, weak motivation or engaging in games of cooperative talk…to accommodate the worker, but signifying very little” (p.78). Tropp (1977b) saw this problem as stemming from a philosophy that promoted generalization instead of specialization. In 1966 Tropp cautioned that “the newest wave of the future in social work is the movement toward a unitary method of practice” (Tropp, 1977b, p.47).
Northen and Kurland (2001) explain the profession’s stance toward integrative practice: “The rationale for the integration of modalities is the view that social work practice is an entity made of several approaches…calling for work with an individual…family…small group…or with organizations in the community” (p.13). Consequently, social workers should be able to draw upon the specific skills needed to work effectively with each particular system (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
The problem, however, is that many schools of social work fail to adequately prepare graduating students to work effectively with groups (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000). In 1963 seventy six percent of MSW programs offered a group work concentration; in 1981 the percentage dropped to 22%; and in 1992 only 7% of MSW programs offered a group work concentration (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). According to research conducted by Birnbaum and Auerbach in 1991 only 19% of schools require that students take a specific group work course, leaving most students to obtain their knowledge from the generalist foundation courses (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). Survey research of faculty teaching generalist practice courses, however, indicates that meaningful group work concepts are not being taught sufficiently (Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000).
The erosion of group work education has resulted in practice that bears little resemblance to the professional standards for effective group work practice, as evidenced by research conducted by Steinberg (1992). Steinberg’s (1992) research comparing differences in approach to practice of those with more than two semesters of group work specific education and those with less indicated that group workers who had taken at least three group work courses were more likely to view their work from the two-client perspective; actively cultivate mutual aid and group autonomy; and view conflict as a normative aspect of group development.
Consequently, in the absence of substantial exposure to group practice theory, workers are left to draw upon strategies most appropriate for work with individuals (Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). This approach to practice typically looks like work with an individual in a group setting (Hartford, 1978; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). As a result of this approach members are typically recipients of the worker’s help; and do not engage in reciprocal relationship with one another (Steinberg, 2004). Group work is likely to become sterile; uninspired; devoid of mutual aid; and arguably ineffective (Freeman, 1987; Steinberg, 1992, 2004).
The concern has not gone unacknowledged by the CSWE and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. In 1995 the two organizations partnered to develop publications designed to address the educational gaps (Shulman, 1998). Toward that end Kurland and Salmon (1998) published the first of this series entitled “Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups” written with the neophyte group work instructor in mind. A major goal of the teaching approach described is to facilitate students’ appreciation of what is uniquely group work “…especially, the essential power of mutual aid” (Kurland and Salmon, 1998, p.147).
Ironically perhaps, Schwartz (1977) was a proponent of an integrative approach to social work education. “It becomes clearer that the interactionist impetus is essentially integrative”, suggested Schwartz (1977, p. 1337). In theory there may be great benefit to such an educational approach, but as the evidence indicates, many social workers are inadequately prepared to work with groups effectively (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). More research of both practice and education needs to be conducted to fully understand the impact of generalist education on group work practice (Kurland and Salmon, 2006; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Steinberg, 1992).

The Concept of Mutual Aid

2007-06-08T11:35:00.000-04:00

Mutual aid theory was first elaborated by Kropotkin (1903), one of the most important evolutionary theorists and socio-biologists of his time, as an evolutionary theory to expand upon that proposed by Darwin which underscored the role of struggle and competition encapsulated in the notion of ‘natural selection’ amongst species, an idea often understood as ‘the survival of the fittest’. Kropotkin (1903) argued that mutual aid as exemplified in efforts at cooperation in the face of common environmental threats was a significant factor in the survival of species. Upon being influenced by a lecture entitled “On the Law of Mutual Aid” delivered at the Russian Congress of Naturalists in January, 1880, by noted zoologist, Professor Kessler, and through his own observations of a number of species that placed communal needs before individual needs rather than engaging in competition for survival, Kropotkin formulated the theory of mutual aid (Kropotkin, 1903). Kropotkin underscored the role of mutual aid with this observation: “…wherever I saw animal life in abundance…on the lakes…in the colonies of rodents…in the migrations of birds…in a migration of fallow dear…I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which passed before my eyes, I saw in it a feature of greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution” (p.ii).
The role of mutual aid in human society was observed by Kropotkin (1903) as well. Kropotkin (1903) observed: “the mutual aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history (p.145). He noted the role of mutual aid in primitive societies as well as his then contemporary society. He found himself “struck with the immense part which mutual aid and mutual support principles play even now-a-days in human life” (Kropotkin, 1903, p.148). Principles of mutual aid are operating in spontaneous neighborliness; utopian cooperatives; trade unions; labor unions; and the settlement house movement (Katz and Bender, 1976; Lee and Swenson, 2005).
The concept of mutual aid bears resemblance to that of social support (Lee and Swenson, 2005). Social support is thought to buffer or cushion the individual from potentially harmful or physiological conditions (Caplan, 1974). Social support can include professional helping offered by an individual worker; this however, represents a departure from the concept of mutual aid as treatment technology. The bi-directional nature of mutual aid is more clearly illuminated when the concept of social support from peers is paired with the helper-therapy principle (Lee & Swenson, 2005; Reissman, 1965). This principle hypothesizes that helping others helps the helper (Reissman, 1965), a hypothesis supported by empirical findings (Roberts et al, 1999). Furthermore, Reissman (1965) suggests that the principle impacts the group as a whole: “not only are individual group members aided in the group, but the group as a whole may be greatly strengthened in manifold ways as it continually offers assistance to individual group members” (p.32). This concept is resonant with the concept of altruism, identified by Yalom (1995) as a therapeutic factor available through group therapy.
Mutual aid theory continues to influence sociobiology (M. Glassman, 2000); is often used as an explanatory framework for understanding self-help/mutual aid groups (Borkman, 1999; Katz & Bender, 1976); and informed the Mutual Aid Model of group work practice originated by William Schwartz (Gitterman, 2004; Schwartz, 1961).
Mutual aid in the worker-led treatment group is understood as an exchange of help wherein the member is both the recipient as well as the provider of help in service of achieving group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). Mutual aid activities are posited to stimulate affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes that as Northen and Kurland (2001) explain can be understood as “dynamic forces”, “therapeutic factors” and “change mechanisms” (p.24).

The Mutual Aid Model of Group Work

2007-06-08T11:25:00.000-04:00

The Mutual Aid Model of group work practice (Gitterman, 2004) has its roots in the practice theory proposed by William Schwartz (1961) which was introduced in the article, “The Social Worker in the Group”. Schwartz (1961) envisioned the group as an “enterprise in mutual aid, an alliance of individuals who need each other in varying degrees, to work on certain common problems” (p.266). Schwartz elaborated: “the fact is that this is a helping system in which clients need each other as well as the worker. This need to use each other, to create not one but many helping relationships, is a vital ingredient of the group process and constitutes a need over and above the specific tasks for which the group was formed” (1961, p. 266).
Schwartz (1976) regarded this approach as resonant with the demands of a variety of group types including, natural and formed; therapeutic and task; open and closed; and voluntary and mandatory. Both the Mutual Aid Model and the concept of mutual aid have endured and continue to inform social work practice with groups (Gitterman, 2004).
Schwartz (1961) premised his approach to practice on ideas expressed by Kropotkin (1903), Dewey (1910), Mead (1934) and Simmel (1955) that illuminated the nature of the relationship between the individual and society. The model was premised on the proposition that there exists a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship between the individual and society, a dynamic encapsulated in the small group (Schwartz, 1961). This type of mutualistic symbiosis was expressed by Schwartz (1971) as the “need to use each other” to work on resolving common problems (p.7).
Schwartz (1977) contrasted this model with approaches that failed to collaboratively work with groups. More importantly he rejected the medical model wherein the worker “decides what is wrong”, “labels it” and prescribes the treatment (Schwartz, 1977, p.1331). This was not to say that the worker avoids using prior professionally obtained knowledge but rather the worker uses this knowledge to deepen “preliminary empathy” (Schwartz, 1977, p.1334). A similar perspective was advanced by Tropp (1977b) who suggested that the worker should employ a phenomenological approach and attend to “current group and individual behavior rather than on prior personality diagnosis” (p.96).
A concept common amongst social group work approaches has been the ‘two-client’ perspective which views both the individual and the group as the two clients engaged with the worker (Trecker, 1948; Schwartz, 1977; Steinberg, 2004). For Schwartz (1977) this dualism was resolved by observing that they both are inextricably linked, engaged in reciprocal relationship. Both the individual and the group “needs the other for its own life and growth” argued Schwartz (1961, p. 153). From this stance flowed Schwartz’ beliefs about the mediating role of the worker, a role he argued belonged to the social work profession at large (Schwarz, 1961, 1971, 1977).
Schwartz (1961) viewed the group as an organic whole and identified “the group organism as a complex of moving, interdependent human beings” (p.18). Expanding on this perspective he identified four main features of the group: the group is a “collective, in which people face and interact with each other; people need each; the purpose of the group is oriented by needing to work on common problems or tasks; and the work of the group is embedded in the function of the agency” (Schwartz, 1976, p. 185).
Schwartz (1971) proposed that the tasks of the worker and the members of the group are interdependent but different, an idea he expressed as “parallel process” (Schwartz, 1971, p.10). The members of the group are charged with both helping themselves and each other (Schwartz, 1971, 1976). The nature of the help could be understood as deriving from the exchange of members’ personal views and experience as well as the expression of feeling (Schwartz, 1977).

Evolution of the Mutual Aid Model

The model proposed by Schwartz followed a historical, theoretical path along the mainstream of social group work (Papell and Rothman, 1980; Tropp, 1977a). According to Tropp (1977a) “the mainstream was more deeply explored by William Schwartz, who further elaborated the concepts of group function and worker involvement, while adding the dimensions of the mutual aid phenomenon and the contractual relation between worker and group” (p.1322).
Schwartz (1961, 1964) initially thought of this approach as an organic systems model (as he viewed the group as an organic whole) later to refer to it as the mediating model and then the interactionist model (Schwartz, 1977). The model initially proposed by Schwartz has been further developed most notably by Lawrence Shulman and Alex Gitterman, who have since referred to this model as the Mutual Aid Model (Gitterman, 2004, 2005; Shulman, 1979, 1992, 1999, 2005b; and Steinberg, 1997, 2004).
The change in nomenclature reflects shifting focus on the various facets of the model with attention to its philosophical underpinnings (reciprocal); to the focus on worker function and activity (mediating); to the emphasis on member interaction (interactional); and with the current appellation, the Mutual Aid Model, to the quality and nature of the interaction of the members (Gitterman, 2004; Middleman and Wood, 1990a; and Steinberg, 1997). Recently Shulman (2005a) introduced the alternate appellation “Mutual Aid Group Treatment” (MAGT) to contrast worker lead treatment groups with mutual aid self help groups (MASH).
Subsequent to presentation of this practice theory, Schwartz elaborated on this model in the following articles and/or chapters” “Toward a Strategy of Group Work Practice (1961); “Small Group Science and Group Work Practice” (1964); “Analysis of Papers Presented on Working Definitions of Group Work Practice” (1964); “On The Use of Groups In Social Work Practice” (1971a); “Social Group Work: The Interactionist Approach (1977); and “Between Client and System: The Mediating Function” (1976). Finally, an unfinished text believed to be written from the period of 1968 to 1972, entitled “Social Work with Groups: The Search for a Method”, was published in a collection of Schwartz’ work in 1994 by Toby Berman-Rossi called “Social Work: The Collected Writings of William Schwartz”.
Noting the importance of this model, Papell and Rothman (1966) identified the model’s primary contribution to social group work practice theory: “its outstanding contribution” is as “the construct of a mutual aid system with professional interventions” (p. 130). For Papell and Rothman, the conceptual strength of the model lay in the observation that “what had been vaguely referred to in the past as ‘helping members help themselves’ has acquired a higher level of theoretical statement. It is now possible to consider the attributes and culture of a specialized system and to transmit the skills necessary to support its realization. This is probably the single most important contribution that group work method can make to the social work profession at large (italics mine, 1966, p. 130). Sharpening Papell and Rothman’s observation, Schwartz (1976) would note that the worker invested in cultivating mutual aid had “the additional task of not only helping people help themselves, but to help each other as well” (p. 194).
Mutual aid would come to be regarded as a hallowed concept in the practice of social group work (Tropp, 1977b). Hartford (1976) noted that the cultivation of mutual aid had become central to generic group work practice. Echoing this observation, Papell and Rothman (1980) noted that “the conception of the group as a mutual aid system had become a universal one in all of group work practice” and had become a feature of the ‘mainstream’ of practice (1980, p. 9).